All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and six months, and one year, respectively, by imprisonment of Defendant H and I.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that each punishment (i) imposed by the court of the first instance (the defendants): one year and two months of imprisonment, confiscation (Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, Proof No. 9 from the defendant A, 4,218, 666 won, 2.2 won of the second instance court (the defendant A): Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, 640,00 won of the additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the Defendants’ assertion of ex officio determination, there are reasons for ex officio reversal as follows.

The grounds for ex officio reversal (each judgment of the court below) due to consolidated proceedings, each appeal case against Defendant A was consolidated in the trial of the court, and the facts constituting the crime of each of the above cases are concurrent crimes provided for in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and only one sentence against Defendant A shall be imposed in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below that separately sentenced punishment on the facts constituting the crime in each of the above cases cannot be maintained as it is.

B. The main text of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. provides that “temporary narcotics, etc., facilities, equipment, or means of transportation provided for a crime as prescribed by this Act, and profits therefrom shall be confiscated” due to the misapprehension of the legal principle.

The first judgment of the court below confiscated each mobile phone (No. 3, 6, and 9) from the Defendants pursuant to the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the aforementioned mobile phones constitutes an object of confiscation stipulated by the above Act, such as equipment provided for the crime of this case.

Therefore, the first judgment ordering confiscation of each cell phone machine is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below on the ground of the above ex officio reversal is without examining the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing, and Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.