beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Samsung, seized.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) The Defendant’s misapprehension of the legal doctrine does not constitute the subject of confiscation, inasmuch as there was no fact that son’s phone (Evidence No. 2) seized was used in relation to the instant crime, and thus, does not constitute the subject of confiscation.
2) The lower court’s sentence (one year and two months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the part forfeited by the defendant
A. Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides that "the articles provided or intended to be provided to a criminal act" as objects that may be confiscated. Here, "the articles intended to be provided to a criminal act" refers to articles that have been prepared to be used in the criminal act but have not been actually used. In light of the fact that confiscation under the Criminal Act is a sentence to be sentenced by adding other punishment in the conviction against the defendant who is under a criminal trial against the facts charged, it should be recognized that certain articles "the articles intended to be provided to a criminal act" are objects that have been provided to the criminal act in question to be confiscated (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10034, Feb. 14, 2008). B. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court, it is recognized that the son (No. 2, 2007Do1034, Feb. 14, 200) seized is an owner of the defendant.
However, there is also a fact that the defendant's statement that he currently seized from the person "F" at the court of the trial of the case is changed to another mobile phone because this connection is not well known.
In light of the fact that the Defendant initially stated as “F,” which is the overall responsibility for the commission of the instant crime, was to communicate with the Defendant using the “F” and the “F,” which is the responsibility for the instant crime, and in accordance with the direction of the “F,” the Defendant’s cell phone (No. 1) with which it is easy for the Defendant to communicate more easily than the phone.