The judgment below

The part concerning the accused case is reversed, and each compensation order for the D, E, and F is given to the applicant for compensation.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment and of confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination of ex officio, the court below, ex officio, confiscated the cellular phone (i.e., hphone and use in China) under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, which was confiscated by applying Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, from the defendant, and should be an object which was or intended to be provided to the criminal act in order to be confiscated as a "object which was provided or intended to be provided for the criminal act."

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the mobile phone No. 7 of the above evidence was an article provided or intended to be provided in a criminal act that the court below found guilty.

Nevertheless, since the court below confiscated the above goods from the defendant, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is not reasonable in criminal proceedings since the defendant's ex officio reversal ground as above exists. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the defendant's case is reversed under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and since the defendant's application for compensation order by K, an applicant for compensation, is well-grounded, it is decided to accept it under Articles 25 (1) and 31 (1) through (3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., and since the request for compensation order by D, E, and F, which is the application for compensation by the court below, is recognized as having received a partial amount of damage from the defendant, it is not clear in the scope of the liability for compensation, thereby issuing a compensation order in accordance with Article 33 (4) of the above Special Cases, and it is decided to dismiss the application for compensation order by D, E, and F, each of the applicants for compensation order by the court below, after pleading.