Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the stolen property seized, for which the reason for return to the victim is apparent, shall be returned to the victim as a judgment."

However, according to the records, it is insufficient to recognize that No. 36, which was seized by Defendant A, was an obvious stolen article that the reason for return to the victim. Thus, the judgment below, which did not issue a sentence of return to the victim, did not err by omitting the judgment as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.