The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A In August, 200, Defendant E shall be punished by a fine of 50.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A ex officio, the reason for return of the seized stolen property to the victim is clear by the judgment (Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the evidence No. 169, which was confiscated, is obvious that the victim AP (the victim No. 45 per annum of the annexed crime No. 1 per annum of the original judgment) should be returned to the victim as the stolen property of the instant crime. Thus, the court below omitted the above seized property even though it had been sentenced by the judgment pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act to return it to the victim AP.

Even if only Defendant A appealed against the lower judgment, the victim’s return does not correspond to the type of punishment, and the above Defendant’s return of the seized object as indicated in the order to the victim AP does not cause damage to the victim. Thus, even if the lower court added the victim’s return which was not sentenced, the above Defendant’s sentence may not be changed disadvantageously.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the return of the stolen goods to the victim, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the part against Defendant A cannot be maintained.

3. In light of the fact that Defendant E was under the suspension of execution at the time of the instant crime, and the circumstances leading to the instant crime, etc., Defendant E was sentenced to punishment for eight months due to the crime of acquiring stolen property. However, Defendant E was sentenced to punishment for eight months due to the crime of acquiring stolen property. As above, the date and time of the crime of acquiring stolen property.