A. Articles 1 through 5 (Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office No. 1615, 2019, hereinafter collectively referred to as "instant seized articles") submitted by a mistake of facts-finding prosecutor are articles provided to each of the criminal acts by the Defendants, and the lower court omitted the declaration of confiscation.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (four years of imprisonment for each of the Defendants A and B, and one year of imprisonment for each of the Defendants C) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of omission of a declaration of confiscation 1) Relevant legal principles - Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act - “goods provided for an act of crime” is not limited to goods used for the act of crime itself, and may include goods used for an act before the commencement of the act of crime or an act of crime after the completion of the act of crime. However, in this case, it should be recognized that such goods contributed substantially to the execution of a crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4075, Sept. 14, 2006). In this case, evidence 1 and 2 among the seized goods of this case is the cell phone seized by the Defendant A, and evidence 3 is the cell phone seized by the Defendant B, and the aforementioned cell phone appears to be the cell phone opened in the name of the Defendant A

(Evidence No. 1 and No. 240 pages) No. 4 are cell phoness seized by Defendant C. According to the evidence admitted by the court below, the Defendants used each of the above cell phoness to receive instructions from Bophishing staff, to report the progress to its assistant staff, or to communicate the Defendants.

(Evidence Records 1: 194, 195, 197, 198, 210, 218, 240, 244, 255 through 271, 285 through 287, 429 through 431, 433, 442, 446, 454). However, the role of the Defendants shared by the fraud of the Bosing Organization is the withdrawal of the so-called Bosing Organization.