The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair. 2) The instant crime by misapprehending the legal doctrine was committed on the cream bank. The computers (No. 1) confiscated by the lower court are irrelevant to the instant crime as well as the Defendant’s father’s property, and thus, it is not subject to confiscation. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides for “goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime” as objects that may be confiscated, as to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine. In this context, “goods provided for an act of crime” refers to goods prepared to be used in a criminal act but not actually used

(Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10034 Decided February 14, 2008). The lower court forfeited one computer body (No. 1) pursuant to Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the above defendant provided or intended to provide one of the main body of the computer (No. 1) to the crime of this case (the crime of this case is all stated that the crime of this case was conducted in the PC, not in the office of the defendant, and according to the data submitted by the defendant, one of the main body of the computer is purchased by the mother of the defendant around January 10, 2014, the middle of the crime of this case) and one of the main body of the computer cannot be deemed as the object subject to confiscation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below ordering the confiscation of an objection is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the defendant's above assertion assigning

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal of this case is with merit. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant and the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing.