The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);

가. 피고인 A 1) 원심 범죄사실 제1항과 관련하여, I이 L로부터 절취한 샤넬 팬던트 1개 및 오팔 펜던트 1개를 매수한 것은 인정하나 그 외 귀금속을 매수한 사실이 없다. 2) 피고인은 매도자인 I의 복장, 태도, 매각동기, 소유여부 등을 확인하였고, 매도대상 물품에 관하여 일반적인 거래시가에 맞추어 대금을 지급하였으므로 I으로부터 이 사건 귀금속을 매수함에 있어 장물인지 여부의 확인에 관하여 금은방 운영자로서 업무상 요구되는 주의의무를 다하였다.

나. 피고인 B 1 원심 범죄사실 제2의 나, 다항과 관련하여, 피고인은 2011. 7. 19.경 I으로부터 I이 L로부터 절취하여 온 다이아반지 2개, 샤넬 귀걸이 1쌍, 어린이 목걸이 1개, 어린이 반지 1개를 매수한 사실이 없고, 같은 해

8. There has been no purchase from the horse border, one mountain half of which I stolen from the horse border.

2. In relation to Paragraph 2-A of the crime of the lower judgment, the Defendant, when purchasing 14K Sbicgs from I, has fulfilled the duty of care required for business as a golder with regard to the confirmation of whether it is a stolen, such as identifying the resident registration number, name, telephone number, etc. against I at the time.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for permission to amend the Bill of Amendment to the Act, which reduces the two of the charges in this case’s two of the two of the charges in the case’s case’s 1-A into one “Ilux.” Since this Court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, despite the existence of the above reasons for ex officio destruction, Defendant A's assertion of misunderstanding of facts, etc. is still subject to the judgment of this court, and will be examined below.

3.