The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

102,00 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of one year and six months, confiscation, collection 102,00 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal by the defendant, the first instance trial prior to the remanded by the prosecutor: ① Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (i.e., destruction of property, such as group or deadly weapons), Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, “Article 369(1) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act” in the facts charged, “1. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (i.e., destruction of property, such as group or deadly weapons)” (i.e., destruction of property, etc.) was permitted by the prosecutor prior to the remanding of the case; ② Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (i.e., violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act) and Article 2(1)5 of the Criminal Act, including Article 7(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc., and Article 2(3) of the Criminal Act.”

Therefore, each of the above parts of the judgment below can no longer be maintained due to changes in the subject of the judgment. Since the revised facts charged and the remaining facts charged in the judgment of the court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below should be reversed in its entirety.

Meanwhile, in cases where seized articles are not present at the time of declaration of judgment or seized articles are already destroyed pursuant to Articles 130(2), 130(3) and 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court cannot pronounce confiscation of such articles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6982, Jan. 28, 2010).