The part of the forfeiture shall be reversed.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination on the penalty for forfeiture. 1) Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act does not limit the “goods provided to a criminal act” to those goods used in the commission of a crime, such as knife, etc. used for murder, but does not limit to those goods used in the commission of a crime, such as knife, etc. used for the commission of a crime, and even if those goods are used for

As long as recognized, goods provided under the above provision of the law are included (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4075, Sept. 14, 2006, etc.). The reason for confiscation and collection, such as whether confiscation is subject to confiscation or recognition of additional collection, is not related to the constituent elements of crime, so strict proof is not necessary, but it is also necessary to be recognized by evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9858, Apr. 7, 2006, etc.).

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the seized account book (Evidence No. 1) was seized upon voluntary submission by the Defendant at the time when the police officer controlled the Defendant on April 19, 2016 by means of a contact loan arrangement, etc. (Evidence No. 53) and the account book appears to contain the business details of the Cuds on the second floor of the B Building operated by the Defendant.

3) However, the instant criminal act is that “the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages, such as singing, to customers of the said singing room on April 19, 2016, and arranged for a entertainment loan,” and the seized No. 1 book contributed substantially to the Defendant’s performance of each of the above acts.

shall not be required to do so.

Therefore, the above seized articles do not constitute “goods provided to criminal conduct” under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act.

It is reasonable to see that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is the same.