beta
Text
The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A excluding the compensation order part, and against Defendant C.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant C of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even if the court below acquitted Defendant C of all of the charges of acquiring an attachment Nos. 1 through 4 of the annexed crime sight table No. 2.
B. Defendant A (unfair punishment) imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A is too unreasonable.
2. Before the judgment of the prosecutor ex officio on the grounds of appeal on the part concerning Defendant C, the prosecutor tried ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor tried to add “acquisition goods by occupational negligence” to the name of the crime, “Article 364 of the Criminal Act,” and “Article 364 of the Criminal Act” to the applicable provisions of the Act, and applied for the amendment of the indictment with respect to which the facts charged are modified as follows. As such, the judgment of the court below on the part
(As the acquisition of stolen goods which was pronounced not guilty in the original trial has been changed to the acquisition of stolen goods by occupational negligence, no determination of the grounds for appeal is made).
1. At around 13:00 on November 20, 2013, Defendant C purchased a total of KRW 2,134,000 of the 2nd smartphone market value of Samsung C, one of which he stolen from A, in front of the two straight lines No. 4 of subway lines No. 659-12 of Dobong-gu Seoul, Dobong-gu, Seoul, 1,59-12, as an employee of a heavy cell phone purchaser.
In such cases, the defendant C, who is engaged in the trade of heavy cell phones, has a duty of care to verify whether he/she is stolen by ascertaining his/her personal information, etc. while checking the process of acquisition of the aforementioned mobile phone, motive for sale, and demand price suitable for the transaction price.
Nevertheless, Defendant C is above.