A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. Defendant - The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the punishment of 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, and 1 to 3 increased confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. In the judgment of the court below, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation, which affected the confiscation of articles that are not subject to confiscation.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court sentenced the forfeiture to the effect that the excessive one dust (the total length: 19cc., knife length: 9cc., 9cc., knife length: 2, hereinafter “excess”) seized constitutes “goods provided for criminal conduct” under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act.

According to Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Code, an article provided for a criminal act may be confiscated if it does not belong to a person other than the criminal or it is acquired by a person other than the criminal knowing that it was after the crime.

In addition, according to Article 333, Paragraph 1, Article 333 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the stolen property seized and the reason for return to the victim is clear should be sentenced to return to the victim by judgment.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts are revealed: (a) excessive amount of seizure is that the Defendant committed a special robbery against the victim J using excessive amount of seizure around April 13, 2017, which was the fact that the Defendant was a stolen object from G operated by the shopping company around 11:00; and (b) the Defendant committed a special robbery against the victim J by using excessive amount of seizure around 23:20 on April 13, 2017.

Therefore, excessive seizure is a thing provided by the defendant to a criminal act, but it is a thing owned by the shopping company (G) and owned by a person other than the criminal. Thus, it constitutes a stolen object not subject to confiscation but a stolen object to be returned to the victim. [K, a person who is a manager of a kitchen shopping company (G) who is a victim of larceny, expressed his/her intent to waive ownership of excessive seizure during the investigation (No. 121 of the evidence record). However, return such as a person subject to confiscation, etc. is made.