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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in sales business of precious metals with the trade name of "D" in Sosan-si.

At around 13:00 on September 19, 2012, the Defendant purchased 2, 18 K K K cream 18K cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream cream

In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in sales of precious metals, has a duty of care to accurately verify and describe the personal information of E, etc., and to verify whether he/she is stolen by well examining the details of acquisition of gold gals, etc., motive for sales, and price suitable for transaction prices.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected such care and did not properly verify personal information, such as E’s phone number, the developments leading up to selling gold blings, etc., in “D,” which is not in the vicinity of the Seocho-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Busan Special Metropolitan City, where E is a residence, and whether to demand the price suitable for the transaction price, and purchased the gold blings, etc. at KRW 1,771,000 by negligence, which neglected the judgment on the stolen.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of E;

1. A copy of the police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to resident registration certificates, business registration certificates, abstractss of resident registration cards and purchase books;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 364 and 362 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the assertion is that the Defendant did not fulfill the duty of care required for the crime of acquiring stolen property through occupational negligence in that he/she verified the E, a seller of stolen property, and purchased the arm’s length price.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence duly completed the investigation in this Court: