The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

except that, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the accused and the prosecutor): Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months, a suspended execution of two years, a community service work, and confiscation);

2. The lower court rendered ex officio determination as to whether the seized evidence Nos. 2 through 4 was confiscated in accordance with Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act regarding each physical check (Evidence Nos. 2 and 4) in the name of another person, other than the Defendant that was confiscated.

Articles subject to confiscation under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act shall be those provided or intended to be provided for criminal acts, and they shall not belong to any person other than the criminal.

The phrase “offender” under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act includes an accomplice. As such, not only the property owned by the defendant but also the property owned by the accomplice may be confiscated regardless of whether the accomplice is prosecuted by the accomplice. Here, the accomplice includes not only the co-principal, the person who constitutes the crime of aiding and abetting, but also the person who is in a necessary accomplice relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5586, Nov. 23, 2006). In light of the above legal doctrine, the health standup and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, transferred or renounced the ownership of the physical card by each of the above physical

It is insufficient to recognize that the above nominal persons are co-offenders of a crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, as long as there is no evidence that each of the above physical cards satisfied the requirements for confiscation, the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on the confiscated portion of subparagraphs 2 through 4 against the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the argument of unfair sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, and it is again decided as follows.

[Discied Reasons for Judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court.