The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and by a fine of seven million won.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (defendant A and prosecutor): Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, confiscation, and defendant B: Imprisonment for a period of ten months, suspended execution of two years, and confiscation);

2. The lower court ex officio rendered a judgment as to whether the seized evidence Nos. 7 and 8 were confiscated by the Defendant A in accordance with Article 48(1)1 or 2 of the Criminal Act with respect to each physical card in the name of each of the non-merchants in the name of P, R, T, V, Y, AA, AE, AE, AE, AI, AL, AR, AR, G, and the physical card in the name of each of the non-merchants in the name of the Defendant B (No. 7) and Article 48(1)1 or 8(8)2 of the Criminal Act.

Articles subject to confiscation under Article 48(1)1 and 2 of the Criminal Act shall be those provided or intended to be provided for a criminal act or those produced by or acquired by such criminal act, and shall not be owned by a 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, there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts about the part of forfeiture of evidence Nos. 7 and 8 against Defendant A, or by misunderstanding legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, among the judgment of the court below.

3. The judgment of the court below is justified for the above reasons for the reversal of authority.