1. The part of the judgment below regarding confiscation shall be reversed.

One gallon (No. 2) seized gallonians and documents of the Financial Services Commission.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio determination on the part of confiscation, as to Chapter 272 (No. 1) and Chapter 75 (No. 4) of 50,00 won among the seized articles for which the court below made a confiscation ex officio.

The Defendant stated that “the money that he had been unable to remit to accomplices from among the money received from the victim” regarding the above confiscated articles, which is deemed as part of the money acquired by the Defendant through the instant crime, and thus, it is deemed as constituting stolen articles.

If so, the above confiscated articles should be returned to the victim and can not be said to be subject to confiscation.

Nevertheless, the court below ordered the above confiscated articles to be confiscated, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

[On the other hand, according to the records, the prosecutor has already decided to return the above confiscated articles on July 25, 2019 to the victim E, K, L, C, and B, and on December 9, 2019, it is recognized that the return to the victim E, K, L, C, and B was completed (in the case of the victim J, the return to the victim is not ordered separately from the disposition).

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment was judged to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing as shown in the process of the first instance sentencing hearing and the sentencing criteria, or the first instance sentencing judgment is maintained in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing.