A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

one seized knife (No. 6 per annum of the seizure list),

A. 50,000 won, which was confiscated by the misapprehension of the legal principle, falls under profits acquired by the defendant through criminal conduct. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation by omitting a sentence of confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though each of the above seized items constitutes the goods provided by the defendant to a criminal act. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation by omitting a sentence of confiscation.

B. In light of the fact that each crime of this case of unfair sentencing constitutes an organized crime in the so-called “Singing,” which is a major social issue, and the Defendant’s act of cash withdrawal is indispensable to achieve the purpose of the financial fraud crime, and the degree of participation is not weak, and the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case again during the period of repeated crimes, even though he had the record of being sentenced to imprisonment for a year and six months in the Suwon District Court on July 18, 2012, which was committed by the Defendant at the Ansan Branch Branch, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a criminal act of this case on July 18, 2012, the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the reason for return to the victim as stolen goods ought to be returned to the victim by judgment. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, 50,000 won, which was seized and the reason for return to the victim I is apparent. Thus, the court below should make a decision to return the seized stolen goods to the victim I pursuant to Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even though it is a judgment.