The part of the forfeiture shall be reversed.

Only one distribution (inedible milk) for the exclusive use of seized prisons(No. 1).

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and legal principles as to the confiscation of 1 Accent 1 (Evidence No. 2), 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, and 2 even (Evidence No. 5) in the form of ice pattern (Evidence No. 4), but the above articles constitute the clothes and shoes worn by the defendant at the time of the crime of this case, which constitute a simple evidence, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides that “goods provided or intended to be provided to a criminal act” as objects subject to confiscation as a judgment of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. Of them, “goods provided to a criminal act” was used directly or substantially contributed to the commission of a crime.

The term "goods that were to be provided to a criminal act" refers to goods that were prepared to be used for the criminal act, but have not been actually used (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do4075, Sept. 14, 2006; 2007Do1034, Feb. 14, 2008). The court below ordered confiscation of the goods that were actually used or failed to actually used for the criminal act of this case as they were worn by the defendant at the time of the criminal act of this case. The court below ordered confiscation of the goods that were actually used for or failed to be used for the criminal act of this case as they were seized. The court below ordered confiscation of the goods that were directly used for or failed to actually contributed to the criminal act of this case.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning confiscation is erroneous.