The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., e., e., g., e., e., e.,

2. The lower court rendered ex officio determination as to whether the seized evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 had been confiscated in accordance with Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act as to each of the instant registration certificates in the name of G and D (Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5) and the seized U and Q (No. 4, 5).

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 “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, in case of each physical check card in the name of G and D, each of the above physical card holders transferred or renounced the ownership of the physical card.

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.

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that each resident registration certificate in the name of U and Q is the goods either provided or intended to be provided for the instant criminal act.

Therefore, as long as there is no evidence that the above physical card and resident registration certificate meet the requirements of confiscation, there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as to the confiscated portion of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the judgment below, which affected the conclusion

3. The judgment of the court below is based on the above reasons for ex officio reversal. Thus, without examining the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing, Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.