특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
Part 1 (No. 3) of Chinese currency (100) seized.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable to determine the sentencing (three years of imprisonment and the return of victims).
2. We examine ex officio the reasons for ex officio appeal prior to the determination of the reasons for appeal.
The court below sentenced the victim's name in relation to the 50,00 won paper 8 (No. 1), 10,000 won paper 3 (No. 2), 1,000 won paper 1 (No. 3), 1 (No. 4), 1 (No. 4), 1 (No. 5), 1 (No. 5), 1 (No. 6), 1,000 won paper 50 won paper 15 (No. 7), 100 won paper 36 (No. 8) paper 100 won paper 8) confiscated by the defendant.
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was guilty of committing the crime Nos. 7 of the crime list in the annexed sheet No. 7, and committing the crime in the annexed sheet No. 540, but the defendant was guilty of committing the theft.
Since the statement has been made (315 pages of evidence), one copy (No. 4) of the Cream (N.D.) seized must be returned to the victim N.
In addition, at the time when the Defendant committed the second crime No. 11 in the annexed crime list, the Defendant thefted one (No. 6) of the wallbbics, and one gold tamping with cash at the time of committing the crime.
The statement was made (Evidence No. 322, 323). The victim H made a statement to the effect that the victim was stolen from one head of Chinese currency and one of the categories of bail (Evidence No. 387). The seized Chinese currency (Evidence No. 3), one (Evidence No. 3), one (Evidence No. 3), a documentary big, and one (Evidence No. 6) shall be returned to the victim H.
In the case of Chapter 8 (No. 1), Chapter 3 (No. 2), Chapter 1 (No. 50,000), Chapter 50,00,00 Won Won Won (No. 50,000), Chapter 1 (No. 7), 15 (No. 7), and 36 (No. 8) per 100,00 Won Won Won (No. 8), the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is whether the above seized articles belong to any person, and it is unclear to which the victim of the above seized articles exists objectively.