The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although drones (No. 1) seized by misapprehending the legal principles on prosecutor (legal scenarios, unreasonable sentencing) 1 do not belong to the Defendant, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on forfeiture from the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant on the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (unfair punishment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the prosecutor's argument of misapprehension of the legal principles, and we can confiscate all or part of the goods that a person other than an offender owns, or knowingly acquired by a person other than an offender after the crime was committed.

(Article 48(1) of the Criminal Code. According to the health team and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Raber (No. 1) among the seized articles of this case can be seen as possessing K, not the defendant, of the defendant's living together (Evidence No. 119 pages, No. 171 pages). The above Raber (Evidence No. 119 pages, No. 171) constitutes a case belonging to "ownership of a person other than the criminal" and thus, it cannot be confiscated.

Nevertheless, the court below sentenced the defendant to confiscate subparagraph 1 of seized evidence. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the prosecutor's assertion pointing this out has merit.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal on the grounds that the prosecutor's appeal is reasonable, and without examining the grounds for unfair sentencing of the prosecutor and the defendant, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it

[Dao-written judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court and the summary of evidence are the same as that of each corresponding part of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is true in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.