Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years, and imprisonment for one year and six months, respectively.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

Stolens that have been seized, and whose reasons for restoration to the victim are apparent, shall be sentenced to restoration to the victim by judgment.

(Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. According to each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, ① Evidence Nos. 1 (50,00 won 29) and Nos. 2 (10,00 won 4) were seized at the time when Defendant B was arrested, and evidence Nos. 4 (10,00 won 10,00 won 4) and 5 (10,000 won 3 pages 1), and Nos. 6 (1,000 won 1) were seized at the time when Defendant A was arrested. ② The Defendants stated that each of the above seized articles was money remaining after using cash that was stolen from Victim E in the crime of special larceny of this case. According to these facts, each of the above seized articles constitutes stolen stolen articles from the victim of the crime of special larceny of this case, it is evident that the reasons for returning them to the victim are clear.

Therefore, although the court below should have sentenced the restoration of the seized stolen property to the victim under Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the court below sentenced the above seized stolen property to be confiscated from the Defendants, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the restoration of the victim, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in its entirety under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants' respective arguments on unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows.

[Dadern Judgment] The summary of criminal facts and evidence is recognized by this Court.