The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles) at the time when D sells stolens to the Defendant, D sold precious metals to the Defendant’s shop located in Busan, even though its domicile was Sacheon, and D sold 10 money around April 15, 2014, and D sold 10 money around April 15, 2014, and D acquired stolen stolen stolen goods due to business and negligence, even though there are sufficient circumstances to suspect whether D sold stolen goods, such as selling 10 money again around the end of April 2014.

In doing so, the court below rendered not guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that “If the precious metal market merchant purchases it in accordance with the price purchased by the market merchant, and at the time of purchase, the seller’s personal information was demanded to present resident registration certificates to identify the seller’s personal information, and confirmed the name, address, etc., the lower court neglected the duty

It cannot be readily concluded (Supreme Court Decision 83Do47 delivered on March 22, 1983), that gold has gone through a procedure to verify the identity of a seller when a person operating a room purchases precious metal.

In light of the legal principles, if there are special circumstances to suspect whether a stolen product is stolen or not, or if a more detailed attention was paid to the nature and type of the purchased product, the identity of the seller, etc., he/she may have known that the product is stolen, and if he/she purchased it without knowledge of the fact that it was stolen, he/she is negligent in doing so (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do348, Apr. 25, 2003)], the crime of acquiring the stolen goods from the superior office and the chief of the office office is established. According to the records, D selling precious metals refers to the Defendant at the age of 60 at the time of the instant case that he/she sold plastic metals, and requested the purchase of precious metals, stating that the hospital's purchase was made by him/her, and she was placed in Australia at the time of the instant case.