beta
Text
The judgment below
I reverse the forfeited portion.
A seized 7 opon 7 (No. 1) shall be confiscated.
. The defendant-appellant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) As the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the confiscated portion, the Plaintiff’s 7 mobilephones (No. 1) and the 1st (No. 2) Samsung Northern Northern computers (No. 2) do not constitute the subject of confiscation, since they were not provided for the instant crime.
2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the part of the Defendant’s confiscation, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant posted a false photograph using the victim E’s photograph and an obscene text on the J website as stated in the lower judgment using 71 phones (Evidence No. 1) (Evidence No. 2, 352-354, 627-628, 632, etc. of the evidence record). Therefore, since the foregoing 71 phone No. 71 was an article provided for criminal acts and does not belong to a person other than the offender, it is subject to confiscation pursuant to Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act.
This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.
2) However, the following circumstances revealed by the record, i.e., one Samsung No. 2 (Evidence No. 2), which led to a digital sirening process that makes it impossible to confirm victims’ photographs or obscene materials, and the Defendant used the said Samsung No. 200 computer for the instant crime in the police and prosecutor’s investigation process.
In light of the fact that there was no statement, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant provided or intended to provide one of the above Samsung N&T computers to the instant crime, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
This part of the defendant's argument is justified.
B. The defendant and the prosecutor respectively.