Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in sales of mobile phones with the trade name called “D” in Seoul Special Metropolitan City 6th floor C.

At around 17:25 on May 6, 2019, the Defendant purchased one mobile phone unit of S10 won in a galglue case of galgal block equivalent to KRW 1,400,000, the market price he acquired from E and F from E and F.

In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in the trade of heavy mobile phones, has a duty of care to verify whether the above E and F personal information, etc. are obtained and recorded, and whether the above mobile phone acquisition process, motive for sale, and price suitable for transaction prices are demanded, etc. are well examined.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while neglecting the above care and neglecting the judgment on the stolen, purchased the above mobile phone unit amounting to 600,000 won due to occupational negligence.

Ultimately, the Defendant acquired stolen goods by occupational negligence as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol regarding E;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding F;

1. Application of each police protocol to G and H

1. Relevant Article 364 of the Criminal Act and Articles 362 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, despite the fact that the defendant had been already punished for the same kind of crime, the fact that the defendant left the crime of this case again is disadvantageous to the defendant, but the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects it shall be considered as favorable to the defendant. In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, are considered as favorable to