The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed.

The articles of incorporation 1 to 25, 31, i.e., seized evidence.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the punishment imposed by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment, items 1 to 28, 31 of confiscation, additional collection of KRW 600,000) is too unreasonable, and the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor are too uneasable and unreasonable.

2. In light of the above, it is advantageous to the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced to punishment for the same kind of crime, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime again during the period of repeated crime, and that the amount and frequency of narcotics handled by the Defendant has considerable amount, while on the other hand, the Defendant showed an attitude to recognize and reflect all of the instant crimes.

In full view of the circumstances above, comprehensively taking into account the circumstances that led to the Defendant to commit the crime, the age, health condition, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances that constitute the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the instant case, the Defendant and the prosecutor’s above assertion are not acceptable on the grounds that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable.

3. The judgment of the court below ex officio as to the confiscated portion of the judgment below rendered a confiscation on the ground that subparagraphs 1 through 28, and 31 of the seized evidence fall under the items provided in Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act or the items provided in the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act.

Articles subject to confiscation stipulated in Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act shall be “goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime”. Nos. 26 (S7), 27 (LG X300), and 28 (S6edgegal gallon, in case of trigal gallon) of the seized evidence are insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was the goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the articles 26 to 28, which have been seized.