The part of the forfeiture shall be reversed.

The number of seized Handphones (Evidence Nos. 127 to 135), No. 1 Nowon-gu.

A. Although Chapter 80 (No. 125) of 80,000 (No. 125) was confiscated, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant, as an employee of E, was involved in the crime of acquiring the stolen goods of this case under the direction of E while he was engaged in the normal and Hand-on export business, etc., and that the Defendant did not obtain any particular benefits from the crime of this case, and that the F, who supplied the handphone to E, was sentenced to suspended execution in the relevant case, the lower court’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to confiscate certain objects, it should be recognized that the said objects are related to a criminal act that is found guilty by instituting a public prosecution. Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides that “goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime” may be confiscated, and Article 48(1)2 of the Criminal Act provides that “goods produced or obtained by an act of crime” shall be “goods that were committed or obtained by an act of crime.” In order to confiscate a certain object, it shall be recognized that the goods were those that were prepared to be used for the pertinent criminal act but failed to be actually used. In order to confiscate them, “goods acquired by an act of crime” should be recognized as those obtained by the relevant criminal act that were found guilty.

(2) On May 27, 2014, Chapters 80 (No. 125) and 80 (No. 125) that returned to the instant case was seized at the Defendant’s office. Meanwhile, the date and time of the crime of acquiring stolens in the instant case from the end of August 2013 to January 2014, there was an interval of not less than four months, and at the Defendant’s office at that time.