A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

The number of seized articles 9 to 14 each year shall be the total list of seized articles.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel is that the punishment imposed by the court below (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Before the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, ex officio examination, seizure of stolen articles and the reason for return to the victim is clear should be sentenced to return to the victim by judgment (Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, found that the investigative agency’s 100,00 won check (No. 9,00 won per annum, No. 5,00 won per annum, No. 10), 5IP-free private rights (No. 11), 1, 1, 3, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, and 10,000 won per annum (the same year, No. 13), 1, 10,000 won per annum, and 14 (the same year, no. 14) should be returned to the victim’s name.

Even if only the Defendant appealed against the judgment below, the victim’s return does not correspond to the type of punishment, and the above seized articles as indicated in the disposition are returned to each victim’s name in return for the victim’s name. Thus, even if the court below added the victim’s return which was not pronounced, the Defendant’s sentence may not be changed disadvantageously to the Defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the return of the victim of the seized articles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen above. The judgment below is reversed, and the following is followed through pleading.