Used luxury watch dealer who bought from 21-year-old thief: Guilty in 1st trial → Not guilty in 2nd trial... Why?

2nd Trial: "Duty of Care in Work Fulfilled"

An operator of a secondhand goods trading business who purchased an expensive wristwatch stolen by a 21-year-old received a suspended prison sentence in the first trial but was acquitted in the appellate court with a completely opposite judgment.

According to the legal community on the 16th, the Criminal Division 1 of the Suwon High Court (Presiding Judges Moon Ju-hyung, Kim Min-sang, Kang Young-jae) overturned the first trial verdict and acquitted Mr. A (44) in the appeal case on charges of acquiring stolen property through negligence in the course of business. Previously, the first trial sentenced Mr. A to four months in prison with a two-year suspension and 160 hours of community service.

Mr. A was indicted on charges of purchasing one luxury watch worth 19.4 million KRW, stolen by Mr. B (21 years old at the time of the incident), who visited the secondhand goods trading business operated by Mr. A in Seo-gu, Daejeon, around December 2022, at a significantly lower price of 10.2 million KRW than the market value.

The prosecution judged that Mr. A failed to fulfill his duty of care in business by not thoroughly examining the acquisition route of the wristwatch, the motive for sale, and whether the price matched the market value to determine if it was stolen property, and brought him to trial. It was investigated that at the time of the transaction, Mr. B presented a resident registration card in the name of Mr. C, who resembled him.

The first trial court judged that although the young Mr. B showed someone else's resident registration card during the transaction, Mr. A did not verify the stolen property status in detail, thus recognizing negligence.

The first trial stated in its ruling, "The defendant only conducted a formal identity verification when purchasing the watch, and it is difficult to consider it a normal transaction that a seller as young as about 20 years old would purchase, possess, or dispose of such an expensive item. Therefore, the defendant should have checked in detail what the seller's occupation was and how the funds for purchasing the watch were prepared, but he only trusted the statement 'I simply need cash' and did not verify further."

It also stated, "At the time of selling the watch, there was no product warranty certificate, but the defendant did not check the circumstances of its loss in detail," and "He also has a history of being subject to a suspended prosecution for acquiring stolen property through negligence in business."

[Image source=Pixabay]

However, the appellate court ruled on the same day, "There were no special circumstances to suspect the item was stolen, and the defendant fulfilled his duty of care in business by verifying the source and possession route of the watch," and "It is difficult to consider that the defendant had a duty to verify the truthfulness of the seller's explanation just because the seller was young."

Mr. B naturally complied with the identity verification measures conducted by the defendant, and when Mr. A asked when and where he bought the watch, Mr. B answered, "I purchased it secondhand at a certain cafe for 19.4 million KRW," according to the investigation.

Regarding the absence of a warranty certificate, Mr. B replied, "I lost it during a move," then sent a photo of the warranty certificate to the defendant. The serial number on the warranty certificate in the photo matched. It was understood that the photo of the warranty certificate was sent by Mr. D, the original owner of the wristwatch, to Mr. B for an online secondhand transaction. Mr. B sprayed self-defense spray on Mr. D's face, whom he met for the transaction, stole the watch, fled, and then sold the stolen property to Mr. A.

The appellate court judged, "The defendant, unaware of these circumstances, would have considered it a normal item after confirming the photo of the warranty certificate." It also ruled that it is difficult to regard the market price of the watch as 19.4 million KRW as stated in the indictment, and that the defendant purchased it at an appropriate price.

Additionally, the fact that Mr. B personally checked the clause in the purchase contract stating, "If the item is lost or stolen property, the transferor will bear any legal punishment," was also a basis for the acquittal.