A. The lower court’s misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the confiscated portion does not constitute an article that the Defendant provided or intended to provide for the crime of intrusion rape and rape in the instant case, and the Defendant did not have taken the body of the victim with the instant opon.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation, which affected the forfeiture of the ID.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, and confiscated the instant IDphones as “goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime” under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act among the goods for which the Prosecutor sought confiscation. 2) Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides that “goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime” may be confiscated, and “goods provided for an act of crime” refers to goods used for an act closely related to an act of crime or an act of crime. “goods provided for an act of crime” refers to goods used for an act of crime, and “goods intended to be provided for an act of crime” refers to goods that have been prepared to be used for an act of crime but failed to be used actually. In addition, in light of the fact that the confiscation under the Criminal Act is sentenced in addition to the sentence imposed against the Defendant under a criminal trial in addition to the sentence against the conviction against the Defendant under the charge, in order to confiscate them as “goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime.”