The judgment below

The part of the confiscation against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 8 of seized evidence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of legal principles was owned by Defendant B, the lower court, not Defendant B, committed an unlawful act of forfeiture from Defendant A. 2, and the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for two years, forfeiture No. 1, No. 2, Defendant B: Imprisonment for ten months, and forfeiture No. 8) of the lower court is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The judgment on the part of the confiscation of the Defendants (Defendant A) and the ex officio judgment (Defendant B) are not owned by a person other than the offender, or can be sentenced to an article acquired by a person other than the offender with the knowledge of the fact after the crime (Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act). Since the crime is interpreted to include an accomplice, it can be confiscated as well as an article owned by the accomplice.

(Supreme Court Decision 200Do745 delivered on May 12, 200, etc.). The court below sentenced Nos. 1 and 2 to be confiscated from Defendant A. According to the records of this case, the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 acknowledged that Defendant A was part of the money that Defendant A paid to Defendant B for the compensation of Cheongdoing death in cash, which was confiscated at the place of residence of B. In this case, the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 constitute the articles that Defendant B acquired by fraudulent act (Article 48(1)2 of the Criminal Act) prior to the occurrence of the articles that Defendant B acquired by fraudulent act (Article 48(1)2 of the Criminal Act).

However, as long as Defendant A paid the said money to Defendant B for the consideration of his suicide as prescribed in subparagraphs 1 and 2, it is reasonable to deem that the said money falls under illegal consideration, and it is difficult to view that Defendant A’s illegality falls under the case of weakness compared to Defendant B, and in this case, the said money falls under the ownership of Defendant B immediately after it was paid. There is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B transferred or renounced the ownership of the said money to Defendant A.

Furthermore, Defendant A.