B. Additional collection of money that the defendant lent to Co-Defendant with gambling funds

B. In a case where the Defendant lent money to another co-defendant with gambling money, that money would belong to the joint ownership of the said co-defendants, not from that time, since it would belong to the ownership of the said co-defendants, it would be possible to confiscate it from that co-defendants by applying Article 48(1)1(b)2 of the Criminal Act, but it would not be of the nature to confiscate it from that

1. The judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below is habitually a defendant.

A. On November 30, 1981, 10:45, at the defendant's house, Co-defendant 1 loaned money from Co-defendant 2's house of the same Myeon, while gambling at the defendant's house. Co-defendant 1, 200,000 won, even though he was aware of the defect, it would facilitate his gambling by lending money to 1,00,000 won.

B. At the time and place under the above paragraph (1), Co-Defendant 2, etc., even though he was aware of the fact that Co-Defendant 2, etc. was able to borrow money of KRW 2,00,000 to Co-Defendant 2 and assist him to do so by facilitating his gambling, and as such, Article 246(2) and (1), Articles 32 and 33(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 4(1) of the Act on Temporary Measures, such as Fines, etc. (Selection of Fines) of the Criminal Act, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2, 50, and 70, Articles 69(2) and 57 of the Criminal Act, Article 334 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 48(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 600,000,000,000 penal penalty for non-payment of a fine.

2. The term "the principal habitual offender" refers to a crime of so-called excessive shape, which is consistently punished by a single crime when multiple acts of the same kind are repeated habitually, and if several acts of the same kind are recognized as habitual crimes, it is reasonable that the judgment above, while recognizing the crime of this case as habitual crimes, it is reasonable that the crime of this case is deemed as substantial concurrent crimes, and the punishment is aggravated by applying Articles 37 and 38 of the Criminal Act, and therefore, there is a violation of law.

3. Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that ① an article for public use of a criminal act ② an article for criminal act or an article acquired from a criminal act ③ The above article for public use of a crime ② Article 48 (2) of the Criminal Act provides that when an article for consideration to be acquired by a person other than a criminal does not belong to the ownership other than a criminal or acquired by a person after the crime, the equivalent amount shall be collected if it is impossible to confiscate the above article. In this case, if the defendant lent the above money to the above defendant for gambling fund, not from that time, the money belongs to the ownership of the defendant, and it is clear that it does not belong to the above defendant, but it does not belong to the property of the defendant by applying Article 48 (1) 1 and 2 of the Criminal Act from that time. Thus, the above article for public use of a crime is subject to collection from the defendant under Article 48 (1) 1 and 2 of the Criminal Act without any particular statement by the court of first instance. Moreover, the crime is subject to collection from the defendant's 300 billion won.

4. Since it is clear that the above violation of the law influenced the outcome of the trial, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained without examining the defendant's grounds for appeal. Ultimately, the appeal is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges' opinions to reverse and remand the judgment of the court below.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)