The judgment below

The part of the forfeiture shall be reversed.

One (Evidence No. 5), one hand, etc. (a white) on a seized stock farm (Evidence No. 5).

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) (the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for three years) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s grounds for appeal by the Defendant is divided into and against his mistake.

In order to raise the hospital expenses, etc. of his father, the defendant seems to have taken into account the motive for the crime.

The amount of damage is not significant.

The defendant agreed with 9 of 10 victims.

These points are favorable to the defendant.

Although the defendant has been sentenced to five times of punishment and one time of suspended execution due to habitual larceny, he also committed the larceny during the period of repeated crime.

The Defendant infringed on churches, etc. over ten times and stolen cash, etc.

It is not good that criminal law and crime are committed.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

Considering the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, circumstances, and result of the crime, all the sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is not hot.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

B. The lower court determined ex officio, based on the fact that the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (one stud of seized wind (defluence), one white light (defluence), and one physical painting (defluence)) constituted “goods provided or intended to be provided to a criminal act” under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, and sentenced to confiscation.

It examines ex officio whether confiscation is legitimate or not.

The Defendant, at the time of committing the crime, wears or ments evidence Nos. 1 through 3, but only these facts alone, offered the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 for the larceny crime of this case.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant provided or attempted to provide the evidence No. 1 to 3 for the thief crime of this case.

The judgment of the court below which confiscated evidence Nos. 1 through 3 is the legal principle as to confiscation.