A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Seized evidence 3 shall be confiscated.

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the restoration of stolen property that has been seized and the reason for the restoration to the victim is clear shall be returned to the victim by a judgment," and Article 333(3) of the same Act provides that "the restoration of stolen property that has been returned to the victim shall be deemed to have been sentenced if no specific sentence is pronounced to the contrary," and therefore, the stolen property seized, the reason for the restoration to the victim of which is apparent, shall be returned to the victim by a judgment, and shall not be confiscated.

According to the records of this case, since it is apparent that the seized Won Won Won-dol 96 (No. 1) and one copy (No. 2) shall be the stolen property owned by the victim I, the court below should order the victim to return the seized Won-dol 96 (No. 1) and one copy (No. 2) of Won Won-dol 96 (No. 1) as well as one copy (No. 2). At the investigation stage, the investigation agency returned the victim the above Won-dol 96 (No. 1) and one copy (No. 2) of Won-dol 96 (No. 1) and one copy (No. 2) of Won-dol n only to the victim. The court below did not order the victim to return the above Won-dol 96 (No. 1) and one copy (No. 2).

Therefore, the court below rendered a confiscation on the above Chapter 96 (No. 1) and Chapter 1 (No. 2) of the Won Won Won, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is again decided as follows, without examining the error of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, since there are grounds for reversal ex officio as seen above.