logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2017.08.08 2017고정105
업무상과실장물취득
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who was engaged in the mobile phone with a mobile phone with expertise in purchasing and selling heavy and abandoned mobile phones from the mobile phone agencies located in the regular Eup/Myeon from March 2015 to February 2016.

1. On May 2015, the Defendant purchased one cellular phone (a model name: SHV-E160S) in Samsung jum jum jum (a model name) from a mobile phone agent with no knowledge of the name of the victim’s name from the end of May 2015, where the name of the mobile phone agent could not be known.

In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in the sales business of the heavy cell phone, has a duty of care to verify whether he/she is stolen by ascertaining the personal information of the seller, and by properly examining the details of the acquisition of the mobile phone, the motive for the sales, and the price suitable for the transaction price

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and neglected the judgment on the stolen water, but purchased approximately KRW 21,00 of the above mobile phone by negligence.

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

2. On June 25, 2015, the Defendant purchased one mobile phone (design name: SHV-E110S) from a mobile phone agent with no knowledge of the name of the victim’s name in the Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si around June 25, 2015, when the gallon gallon, where the market price that is the victim’s name was stolen or lost, could not be known.

In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in the sales business of the heavy cell phone, has a duty of care to verify whether he/she is stolen by ascertaining the personal information of the seller, and by properly examining the details of the acquisition of the mobile phone, the motive for the sales, and the price suitable for the transaction price

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to make a judgment on the stolen water and neglected to do so, about 5.5% of the above mobile phone by negligence.

arrow