The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the legal principles, even though it is sufficiently recognized that the ex post facto search and seizure warrant was issued as to No. 1 (No. 1) of the evidence seized, the court below did not pronounce confiscation on the ground that there was no evidence showing that the ex post search and seizure warrant was requested and issued. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to confiscation.

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court is deemed unreasonable.

2. In cases where it is necessary to urgently seize an article owned or kept by an urgent arrested person, a public prosecutor or a judicial police officer may search or inspect such article without a warrant within 24 hours from the time of arrest (Article 217(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Where it is necessary to continuously seize the seized article, a public prosecutor or judicial police officer shall request a warrant of search and seizure without delay.

In such cases, the request for a warrant of search and seizure shall be made within 48 hours from the time of arrest (Article 2(2)).