beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the compensation order for D among the compensation applicants shall be reversed except the part of the compensation order for D.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too heavy or unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too heavy or (the defendant).
2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor ex officio, this paper examined ex officio.
Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides for "goods which have been, or intended to be, provided for an act of crime" as objects that can be confiscated. Here, "goods which have been, or intended to be provided for an act of crime" refers to goods which have been prepared to be used for an act of crime but have not been actually used. In light of the fact that confiscation under the Criminal Act is sentenced in addition to other punishment in addition to the conviction of the accused who is under a criminal trial against the facts charged, it is "goods which are intended to be provided for an act of crime" and "goods which
(Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10034 Decided February 14, 2008). However, there is no clear evidence to acknowledge that each of the above seized items was an article provided or intended to be provided for each of the crimes listed in the judgment below, since one resident registration certificate in the name of LG mobile phone (CU) used by the defendant, one resident registration certificate in the name of CV (No. 8), one driver's license in the name of CV (No. 10) and one certificate in the name of CV (No. 11) was seized in the course of arrest of the defendant on July 9, 2014.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to regard it as an object under Article 48(1)2 and 3 of the Criminal Code.
Rather, according to the records, it is recognized that the Defendant, under the police investigation on July 9, 2014, stated that he/she was holding CV’s wallets.
(2014 Highest 1692 Evidence Nos. 281,282). Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a confiscation on each of the above seized articles, and thus, determined by the lower court as such, erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on confiscation.