The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

One resident registration certificate seized shall be the victim H.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error1) With regard to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, no check and cash, which are damaged goods as stated in the instant facts charged, were stolen. 2) In relation to the embezzlement of stolen property, the Defendant acquired the victim’s resident registration certificate, but it was thought that it was returned, and thus, the intention of unlawful acquisition cannot be recognized.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the stolen goods which were seized and the reason for return to the victim is clear shall be returned to the victim by the judgment (Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, one resident registration certificate owned by the victim H was confiscated (Article 233(1) of the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office No. 2013Ma712 of the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office No. 2013). This is obvious that the defendant acquired the stolen goods by the crime of embezzlement of possession in the judgment and the reason for return to the above victim is apparent (According to the records, it is recognized that the above victim expressed his/her intention that he/she would not want to receive the stolen goods once again issued the resident registration certificate (Evidence 226 of the evidence records), and even if the person subject to return such goods loses substantive rights by waiver of ownership after seizure, it cannot affect the investigative agency's duty to return the seized goods to the victim.