The judgment below

The part of the confiscation against the Defendants is reversed.

All remaining appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by Defendant B (a penalty of KRW 1 million, confiscation under subparagraph 1 of the seized evidence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the confiscation (the confiscation under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act is voluntary, since there is no ground for appeal against this, it shall be deemed ex officio) as to the part of the judgment below's confiscation (the confiscation under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act is decided, whether it is necessary to confiscate even an article that meets the requirements for the confiscation shall be left at the discretion of the court of response,

In order to determine whether confiscation violates the principle of proportionality, the following should be taken into account: (a) the extent and scope used in the commission of this crime (hereinafter “goods”) and the importance of the goods subject to confiscation; (b) the role and degree of responsibility of the owner of the goods in the commission of the crime; (c) the degree of infringement of legal interests and interests arising from the commission of the crime; (d) the motive for the commission of the crime; (e) the profit obtained from the crime; (e) the separate possibility of separating the part related to the commission of the crime from among the goods; (e) the substantial value of the goods; (g) whether the goods are essential to the offender; and (e) whether the goods are not confiscated; and (g) whether the offender is likely to repeat the same kind of crime again by using the goods (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do11586, May 23, 2013).

However, the present owner of the instant vehicle is Defendant A as Defendant B.