The part of the forfeiture shall be reversed.

Documents seized 21 copies of the Financial Supervisory Service (No. 1), mobile phones (LG G5).

A. The sentence imposed on the Defendant by the lower court (the sentence of one year and six months of imprisonment and the sentence of 1,2, and 3) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the defendant is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence Nos. 2 (No. 55 of the investigation record), the lower court acknowledged that the evidence No. 2 was “No. 36 of the 36th page,” and according to the copy of the non-prosecution notice submitted by the prosecutor, the “No. 2-1 of the 2-1 of the evidence was already returned to the presenter,” and it is reasonable to view the “No. 45 of the above Chapter” as a clerical error in the “No. 36 of the 36th page.”

In addition, Article 48 (1) 2 of the Criminal Code is deemed to fall under "the goods that have been caused by a crime or acquired by it" and sentenced to confiscation.

It examines ex officio whether confiscation is legitimate or not.

According to the records, the defendant was seized at the time of the urgent arrest, and the defendant stated to the effect that the money acquired from the crime of this case among the above money is KRW 1.8 million, and the remainder is money unrelated to the crime of this case.

Therefore, among Chapter 45 of the Doz., what is the Doz., the Doz. that acquired through the instant crime cannot be specified. Thus, it cannot be determined that only the seized Doz. 36 Chapter Doz. (No. 2) constituted a thing that was produced or acquired by the said criminal act, and the above 1.8 million won constitutes “when a thing that was caused by a criminal act or acquired by such act is impossible to confiscate” under Article 48(2) of the Criminal Act, and thus, it shall be subject to additional collection.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which confiscated No. 2 is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(b) the defendant;