The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

D. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year.

Seized evidence No. 26.

A. Although items 1 through 3, 7, and 11 of the evidence seized by misunderstanding the legal principles are items provided for the instant crime or acquired as a result of the instant crime, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which omitted confiscation. 2) The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendant A (the long-term two years of imprisonment and the short-term one year of imprisonment) is too unfortunate and unfair.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (for a short-term of 2 years of imprisonment, 1 year of short-term, 2 years of imprisonment, 2 years of imprisonment, 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years and 2 years of imprisonment) is deemed unfair.

2. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, first of all, it is difficult to view that the above seized articles were offered or intended to be offered for the instant crime, or that they were acquired from the instant crime, solely on the basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, as to the Nos. 1 (O.S. No. 1), 2 (O.S. No. 12), and 3 (O.S. No. 12) which were seized, and there is no

(P) Even if the above seized articles are subject to confiscation, the lower court cannot be deemed unlawful that it did not sentence the confiscation of the above confiscated articles subject to discretionary confiscation, as seen below. Following evidence Nos. 7 (1) 1, 8 (1 leg), 9 (1) 1, 10 (2) and 11 (1) of the No. 11 (1) of the Criminal Act are articles owned by the Defendant, which are provided for the crime, and thus, they are subject to confiscation pursuant to Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act.

However, since the confiscation under Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Code is voluntary, it depends on the court's discretion whether to confiscate even an article that meets the requirement of confiscation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do515, Sept. 4, 2002). Therefore, the lower court’s aforementioned seized articles subject to discretionary forfeiture.