The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

To the victim T. 23, 46, and 60 seized evidence.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is unfair because the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment and the return of the victim) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the reasons for return to the victim as stolen goods must be determined by the judgment (Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below did not have any evidence to prove that the above confiscated goods were returned to the victim, 54, 56, 57, 59 through 63, 66, 68 were returned to the victim. The court below did not have any evidence to prove that the above confiscated goods were returned to the victim, 19 through 24, 27, 30 through 36, 38 through 40, 42, 44 through 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59 through 63, 668 were the stolen goods of the crime of this case, and there were no evidence to prove that the above confiscated goods were returned to the victim, 250, 275, 271.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained (the return of a victim does not correspond to the punishment stipulated in Article 41 of the Criminal Act, and does not cause any damage to the defendant due to the return of the victim, and only the defendant appealeds the case where only the defendant filed an appeal, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the ground that the defendant newly added the victim's return omitted by the judgment of the court below.).