A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Nos. 1 through 6, 8.

A. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the legal principles (as to the judgment of the court below 1), No. 24 (inc. plastic machine containing inflammable substances) is a seized article that has been disposed of at the investigation stage, but the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation.

2) The punishment sentenced by the first instance court (three years of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing (with respect to the judgment of the first instance court) is too uneasible and unfair.

B. Each punishment sentenced by the lower court (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for three years, and imprisonment with prison labor for one year) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, this Court reviewed the appeal cases by combining the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance and the judgment of the court of second instance. Each crime of the first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained in entirety.

However, the prosecutor's argument of misunderstanding the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on forfeiture, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although it constitutes a case where: (a) No. 24, which is a seized article of this case, can not be confiscated because it is obvious that the seized article of this case had been already discarded and still remains, and thus, (b) the court below’s forfeiture of No. 24, which constitutes a case where it is impossible to confiscate it.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for reversal, and the prosecutor's appeal on the part of confiscation of the decision of the court of first instance is also justified. Thus, the judgment of the court below without examining the prosecutor's and the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing.