Of the confiscated parts of the judgment of the court below, the parts of subparagraphs 29 through 47 of the evidence shall be reversed.

The remaining appeal by the defendant is filed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the confiscation of seized articles that were confiscated by mistake of facts, even though they were unrelated to the crime of this case.

B. The Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime, such as receiving mental and hospitalized treatment for several years due to the aftermath of a traffic accident.

C. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of two million won, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, Article 48(1)1 of the relevant legal doctrine provides that "goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime" as objects that may be confiscated. The term "goods intended to be provided for an act of crime" refers to things that have been prepared to be used for an act of crime but have not been actually used. In light of the fact that confiscation under the Criminal Act is sentenced in addition to other punishment in addition to the conviction against the defendant who is under a criminal trial against the facts charged, it should be recognized that certain goods "the goods intended to be provided for an act of crime" is "the goods intended to be provided for an act of crime" and the goods intended to be provided for an act of crime recognized as guilty (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1034, Feb. 14, 2008) and evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant opened the account under the name of D and F Co., Ltd. as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the circumstances leading up to K’s emergency arrest and seizure from each of Defendant No. 29 to 4 through No.