The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Sexual assault against the defendant for 80 hours.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the grounds for appeal by the defendant before determining ex officio.

Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides that “goods provided or intended to be provided to a criminal act” as objects subject to confiscation. Of them, “goods provided to a criminal act” was directly used or substantially contributed to the commission of a crime.

Articles recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4075, Sept. 14, 2006) and “goods intended to be provided for criminal acts” mean things that were prepared to be used in the criminal act but have not been actually used (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10034, Feb. 14, 2008). The lower court confiscated the main body of a computer (Evidence No. 2) seized pursuant to Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, and Jin Mac (Evidence No. 3). The lower court did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the body of the computer was provided or intended to provide for a criminal act listed in the lower court, and so, Mack was merely a clothes worn by the Defendant at the time of the criminal act of this case, and cannot be seen as being erroneous in the lower judgment because it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the articles used directly or actually for or contributed to the act of the crime of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10034, Feb. 14, 2019).

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed, and the following judgment is delivered after pleading.

【Re-Appellant】