The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

A victim of a seized welfare card (No. 4).

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Stolen confiscated for ex officio judgment and whose reasons for return to the victim are apparent, shall be sentenced to return to the victim by a judgment;

(Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Article 333(1). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, all of the seized welfare cards (Article 4), one conviction card (Evidence 5), and SDR 4GB (Evidence 6) are the stolens acquired by the defendant, and the reason why each return to the relevant victim is clear, and there is no evidence to prove that the provisional return was made. Thus, the court below erred by omitting it even though it had been sentenced to return to the victims under Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 230 of the Criminal Act, and Article 230 of the Criminal Act for each of the following crimes:

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. It is recognized that the reason for sentencing under Article 333(1) of the Return Criminal Procedure Act recognizes all of the criminal offenses, and that the current health of the defendant is not good.

On the other hand, however, the defendant is a same crime.