The portion of return shall be reversed.

The remaining appeal by the defendant is dismissed.

A. In relation to each larceny, each larceny 1), the Defendant merely acquired a well-known article, but did not steals it. 2) As to each possession of stolen article embezzlement, the Defendant’s return of the article to the police station immediately on the day the article was taken away, and thus, does not constitute an offense.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (no. 1-A, b, 3-A, 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of No. 1-a, 3-a, 1-c, 5-2, 4-2, 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of No. 1-2, 3-a, and

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

The lower court sentenced the Defendant to the return of one copy (Evidence No. 6) of the BC C Card that was confiscated by the Defendant, to the victim’s name and unclaimed boxes.

Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that, as stolen property seized, the reason for return to the victim is clear shall be sentenced to a declaration of return to the victim by judgment. Here, "when the reason for return is apparent" means cases where it is evident that the victim has the right to request the delivery of the seized property under private law, and it cannot be said that there is a clear reason for return in cases where there is a doubt about the above right to claim delivery.

(See Supreme Court Order 84Mo38 delivered on July 16, 1984. However, although BC Card No. 6 (Evidence No. 6) seized by the Defendant cannot be deemed to be a stolen with clear and clear reason to return the fact that it is not included in the stolens of each of the crimes of this case, it cannot be deemed that the part that the court below made the victim to return to a person who is not the victim’s name, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the return of the victim, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court duly adopted and investigated the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts.