The judgment below

The part concerning confiscation shall be reversed.

Nos. 1 to 9, 16 of seized evidence shall be charged to the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (an imprisonment of one year, 1 to 10, 16, and 200,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The lower court sentenced the Defendant to the forfeiture of Nos. 1 through 10, and 16.

Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides for "goods which have been, or have been, provided for a criminal act" as objects that may be confiscated. Here, "goods which were intended to be provided for a criminal act" refers to things which have been prepared to be used for a criminal act but have not been actually used. In light of the fact that confiscation under the Criminal Act is sentenced to an additional punishment in addition to other punishment in a conviction against the defendant who is under a criminal trial against the facts charged, it should be recognized that certain goods are "goods which are intended to be provided for a criminal act" and "goods which are intended to be provided for a criminal act to be forfeited" are objects to be provided for a criminal act to be found guilty (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1034, Feb. 14, 2008). No evidence No. 10, which had been seized by the defendant on December 19, 2016, is "4 disposable injections which had no effect on the conclusion of the judgment of the court below," and it cannot be deemed as evidence No. 1 to be provided for a crime No. 41 to be deemed as evidence.

B. The grounds for appeal are acknowledged that the defendant led to a confession of crime, reflects depth, and actively cooperates in the investigation.

(b).