The judgment below

The part concerning confiscation shall be reversed.

The remaining appeal by the defendant is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (a 10-year imprisonment and confiscation of the seized evidence Nos. 2 and 4) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 48(1)1 of the ex officio judgment on the part of confiscation, Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act provides that "goods which are not owned by a person other than the criminal or which have been provided or intended to be provided to the criminal act" may be confiscated by those who have been knowingly acquired by a person other than the criminal after the crime. According to the records, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion of unjust sentencing is without merit, in light of the following: (a) the background and method of the instant crime, the contents of the crime, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, which is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court; (b) although the Defendant appears to have served to a certain extent at the time of the instant crime, it does not seem that the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder did not change things or lacks the ability to make decisions; (c) as to the assertion of unjust sentencing, the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime, while making a confession of the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant has interest in getting a little alcohol.