The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be sentenced to one year of imprisonment.

The court below dismissed all of the applicant's application for compensation, and confirmed at the same time as the above applicant for compensation was not dissatisfied with the adjudication. Thus, the part of the court below's rejection of the above order for compensation among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the adjudication of this

2. As to the summary of the grounds for appeal (in both cases, one year and six months of imprisonment), the defendant asserts that the defendant is too unreasonable, and that the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

3. As stolen goods seized ex officio, the reasons for return to the victim must be returned to the victim by judgment (Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the court below and the court below duly adopted and examined evidence, the court below should have rendered a declaration of return to the victim by judgment (Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the return of the victim's seized article 100, 100, 100, 50, 100, 100, 50, 100 won, 50,000 won, 4, 10,000 won, 50 won, 4,000 won, 10,000 won, 24,000 won (Evidence 6,040,000 won, which were acquired by the defendant for the crime of this case, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the return of the attached list 31.

4. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for ex officio reversal.