The part concerning confiscation shall be reversed.

A knife (No. 7), a knife (No. 8), a knife (No. 8);

A. The Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) committed robbery, misunderstanding the legal doctrine and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) committed robbery, and subsequently murdered the Victim F. As such, the victim F., who did not murder the Victim F. Thus, the crime of robbery and the crime of murder is established, even though the crime of robbery was committed, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Since the Defendant, who was physically and mentally weak, was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, punishment ought to be mitigated.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a 30-year imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination on the defendant's case

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in the instant case (as to the confiscated portion), and subsequently confiscated one knife (No. 7), one knife (No. 8), one knife (No. 9), one knife (No. 9), one knife (No. 10) and one knife tape (No. 10) seized from the Defendant by applying Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act.

Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides that among goods provided or intended to be provided for criminal acts, those which do not belong to a person other than the criminal or are acquired by a person other than the criminal with knowledge of the fact after the crime may be confiscated.

In this case, it means the ownership of a person other than a criminal and the ownership of a person other than a criminal.

However, according to the lower court’s legal statement, the protocol of seizure and the list of seizure (Evidence No. 197, 198 pages) of the Defendant on August 18, 2015, one of the above seized articles (Evidence No. 10) was stolen on August 10, 2015 by the Defendant, and is the fact that the victim’s name was lost.