The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (unfair sentencing) on the Defendant (one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The evidence Nos. 18 (57, 37, 19 (10,000 won) and 19 (19,000 won) (hereinafter “the seized article of this case”) that were seized from the illegal defendant due to the omission of confiscation are the amount obtained by selling the cell phone obtained due to the act of acquiring the stolen article of this case, and shall be confiscated pursuant to Article 48(1)3 of the Criminal Act. However, the lower court’s determination on this portion is unlawful, since it omitted the confiscation.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the prosecutor’s assertion on the part of forfeiture part 1) determined that the prosecutor did not sentence forfeiture, on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the above confiscated article falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, although the prosecutor was sentenced to forfeiture as to Articles 18 and 19 of the evidence seized against the Defendant

2) The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant’s investigative agency’s “the instant seized articles” is the preceding day before the instant seized articles were taken.

4. In light of the fact that the 15th 5th homicide stated to the effect that “the money deposited in the passbook was deposited and preserved in the agricultural cooperative, agricultural cooperatives seeking hospital costs and private teaching institute costs,” there is a possibility of normal funding. ② Of the facts charged in this case, the time when the mobile phone was disposed of to M with respect to the instant case 143 case, the time when the cell phone was disposed of to M is before March 15, 2016, prior to April 16, 2016 (Evidence No. 1028 page of evidence record), and the time when the other cell phone was disposed of (Evidence No. 1028 page of evidence record), etc., submitted by the prosecutor.