The part of the confiscation against the defendant is reversed.

Nos. 1 through 14, 22.22.

A. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. In the judgment of the court below that sentenced the confiscation of the above confiscated articles even though the articles unrelated to the facts charged in this case are not subject to confiscation, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. According to the argument and record of the instant case’s determination of the unfair argument of sentencing, the lower court appears to have been reasonably determined by fully considering the various sentencing grounds asserted by the Defendant, and there are no special circumstances to ex post facto change the sentencing. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. Determination of the misapprehension of legal principles 1) The lower court, on the premise that both the evidence seized by the Defendant and the evidence Nos. 15 through 21, and 32 constituted the requirement under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, was confiscated.

2) Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides that "goods which have been, or are to be, provided for a criminal act" as objects that may be confiscated. In this context, "goods which have been, or are to be provided for a criminal act" refers to things which have been prepared to be used for a criminal act but have not been actually used. In light of the fact that confiscation under the Criminal Act is a punishment sentenced to another punishment in addition to the other punishment in the conviction against the defendant who is under a criminal trial against the facts charged, it should be recognized as "goods which are to be provided for a criminal act" and "goods which have been provided for a criminal act" in order to confiscate shall be recognized as a "goods which have been provided for a criminal act" (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1034, Feb. 14, 2008, etc.). However, there is no evidence to support that the court below provided or intended to be provided for a criminal act in this case with respect to evidence No. 15 through 21, and 32

3.2.