The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for 18 years.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentence of the court below (18 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

Articles subject to confiscation stipulated in Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act shall be "goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime", and they shall not belong to the possession of a person other than the offender.

Here, "goods provided for committing a crime" refers to goods that have been directly used or have been actually contributed to committing a crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4075 delivered on September 14, 2006). The court below ordered confiscation to the effect that official approval, which was seized, falls under “goods provided for criminal acts” as prescribed by Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, such as one string of the following: (i) one string of Accenture learning (Evidence 2); (ii) one string of a cromatic string (Evidence 4); (iii) one string of a kitchen (Evidence 5); (iv) one string of a half string of a written pattern (Evidence 6); and (v) one string of a white (Evidence 7) constitutes “goods provided for criminal acts” under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act.

However, evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 cannot be viewed as a thing provided in the criminal act with clothes that the defendant was suffering at the time of committing the crime, and evidence Nos. 5 is a kitchen knife (Evidence No. 466 pages), which the defendant brought from the victim's multi-use room after the victim died, and the evidence Nos. 6 and 7 appears to be a thing owned by the victim as a thing used in washing the blood trace of the victim remaining after committing the crime. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to view that the evidence Nos. 2 through 7 does not belong to a person other than the criminal and is not directly used for or actually contributed to the commission of the crime of this case, and it cannot be confiscated as there is no other supporting evidence.

Therefore, since the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation, it cannot be maintained any more.

In conclusion, this conclusion is followed.