사기등
The judgment below
Among them, the part of the forfeiture of 6 parts(No. 2) of opon 6 shall be reversed.
The remaining appeal by the defendant is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below sentenced the defendant (the imprisonment of three years and the imprisonment of 1, 2 years and the imprisonment of 1, 2 years) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for an ex officio judgment.
Among the articles provided or intended to be provided for criminal acts, an article that is not owned by a person other than the criminal or acquired by a person other than the criminal knowing the fact after the crime is committed may be confiscated (Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act). In other words, the following circumstances recognized by the court below by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., that the owner of a 61 mobile phone (Evidence No. 2) recorded the seized article as a "AO" for the defendant's female-friendly job offers (Article 318 page of the evidence record), and that the above mobile phone is not owned by AO because it is deemed that the above mobile phone is owned by AO, and thus it cannot be subject to confiscation because it is clear that it is an article owned by a person other than the criminal.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the part of the judgment of the court below on confiscation of 61 mobilephones (No. 2) cannot be maintained further.
B. Considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, even if there is no change of circumstances that may be considered in the sentencing after the lower judgment regarding the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, and the various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case are considered.
3. Accordingly, the above part of the judgment below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is a ground for ex officio reversal on the part of the confiscation of 61 mobilephones (No. 2) among the judgment below.