Among them, the part of confiscation against Defendant E shall be reversed.

The branch offices of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, which have been seized, shall be located in 2016.

A. misunderstanding of the facts as to confiscation or misapprehension of the legal principles as to confiscation 1) No. 3 of the evidence seized by Defendant D is not a mobile phone used for the crime of the Defendant.

Nevertheless, since the court below sentenced the above confiscated articles, it erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The evidence seized by Defendant E was not used for committing the Defendant’s crime.

Nevertheless, since the court below sentenced the above confiscated articles, it erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. Sentencing 1) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, five years of imprisonment, three years of imprisonment, one year and six months of imprisonment, and one year and six months of confiscation, Defendant C: Imprisonment, one year and six months of confiscation and confiscation, Defendant E: one year and one year and six months of imprisonment, and one year and six months of confiscation and Defendant F) is too unreasonable.

2) The lower court’s respective sentence against the prosecutor Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of the legal principles on confiscation 1) Defendant D’s Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act is subject to confiscation of “goods provided or intended to be provided for a criminal act.” Here, the offer of goods for a criminal act refers to the use of goods directly used for, or closely related to, the commission of a criminal act as the tool of a crime.

On the other hand, it does not require strict certification as to whether confiscation or collection is subject to confiscation or collection, or the recognition of collection amount does not require strict certification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do3346, Jun. 22, 1993; 2015Do1233, Apr. 23, 2015). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, subparagraph 3 of the evidence seized from the Defendant is the cell phone of Samsung Galle S5 (the telephone number: D and model name: SM-G90K) used by the Defendant, and the Defendant calls with A from time to time by using the aforementioned cell phone during the period in which the Defendant participated in the crime, and the period of the crime committed by the Defendant at an investigative agency.