The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Seized evidence 10 shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability or mental disability with mental disorder due to depression, etc.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

(1) The record reveals that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Busan District Court on September 7, 2010 and completed the execution of the above punishment on November 14, 201.

The crime of this case is committed within three years from the time when the defendant completed the execution of the above punishment, and constitutes a repeated crime. The court below omitted weight of repeated crime in the application of statutes.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained due to the violation of laws and regulations that affected the judgment.

(2) According to Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, an article provided or intended to be provided for a criminal act, which does not belong to a person other than the criminal or is knowingly acquired by a person other than the criminal after the crime, may be confiscated in whole or in part.

However, according to the records of seizure as of January 16, 2013 and the list of seizures, the holders, investors, and owners are all indicated as E, which is the former wife of the defendant. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence to acknowledge that the above mother does not belong to a person other than the defendant or that a person other than the defendant acquired it even though he was aware of the fact after the crime.

Nevertheless, since the court below sentenced the above mother and child confiscation, it erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

B. However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio.