The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that: (a) the Defendant purchased a female precious metal from E on August 21, 2014; and (b) there was no detailed confirmation of the source and the developments of possession; and (c) E did not grasp the weight or price of the precious metal he/she intends to sell; and (d) there was a special circumstance to suspect whether the goods he/she purchased are stolen or stolen; (b) however, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or acquitted the Defendant on this part.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on August 21, 2014, as stated in the written judgment, concerning the acquisition of goods through occupational negligence, was insufficient to prove that the Defendant was negligent in performing his/her duty of care as a person engaged in the sales business of precious metals.

In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s determination and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is difficult to view that there was a special circumstance to suspect whether E initially visited the Defendant and sold precious metals, and there is no evidence to deem otherwise that the Defendant could have known that the said precious metals were stolen.

① A driver’s license appears to have been born in 1979 on a motor vehicle confirmed by the Defendant. It is difficult to deem that such words should have been particularly doubtful when considering the Defendant’s age and the whole life, etc.

2. The driver's license also shows the E's domicile, and the E's domicile was written in Gangseo-si.