The judgment below

The part concerning confiscation shall be reversed.

A sum of nos. 2 (Nos. 2) seized shall be confiscated.

Improper sentencing of the summary of reasons for appeal: The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case (as to the part of confiscation), and forfeited one knife (No. 1) and one knife (No. 2) seized by applying Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act from the Defendant.

Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides that among goods provided or intended to be provided for criminal acts, those which do not belong to a person other than the criminal or are acquired by a person other than the criminal with knowledge of the fact after the crime may be confiscated.

In this case, it means the ownership of a person other than a criminal and the ownership of a person other than a criminal.

According to the records, one seized knife (No. 1) is recognized as having stolen on July 28, 2017, as stated in Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as the defendant committed a crime of "2017 Gohap 397" as stated in the judgment of the court below, and thus, he/she is deemed as having owned Maart. Thus, he/she cannot be subject to confiscation pursuant to Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, and it constitutes "the seized stolen stolen property, the reason for return to the victim is apparent," and thus, he/she shall be returned to Maart Co., Ltd. pursuant to Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The judgment of the court below ordering the confiscation of one knife (No. 1) is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to confiscation. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below as to confiscation cannot be maintained any more.

B. As to the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing, the following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant: (b) has divided his mistake into depth; (c) some damaged goods have been returned to the relevant victim; (d) the lower court compensated the victim of special robbery and the victim R, N, T, Q, I, K, and S, respectively; and (d) and F, as the victims of special robbery, do not want to be punished by the Defendant in the first instance.

However, there is a difference.