The part of the judgment below regarding subparagraph 8 of the evidence shall be reversed.

The remainder of the defendant's appeal and the prosecutor.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence (a year and June, and confiscation) against the Defendant (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

B. With regard to a prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of sentencing) 1) a not-guilty verdict of the lower court, the Defendant recognized that the money collected by the Defendant was a gold source acquired from a Bosing crime, and conspired with a person who has no name, secret, and impliedly committed the instant crime, and thus, the Defendant is liable for the joint principal offender’s charges for the crime of conflict and the attempted crime of attack.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged that each aiding and abetting crime is inappropriate is erroneous as a matter of law.

2) The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by both parties on each of the grounds for appeal as to the confiscation under subparagraph 8 of the evidence.

According to the records, the court below is recognized that among the seized articles of this case, the Madren (No. 8) of Madren (No. 8) which appears to have been purchased near the scene of crime was confiscated pursuant to Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act.

However, under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, “goods provided or intended to be provided to a criminal act” is “goods provided or intended to be provided to such criminal act” and should be provided or intended to be provided to the criminal act in question. As such, the Defendant provided or attempted to provide the above goods for aiding and abetting and aiding to commit an attempted crime and aiding and abetting to commit an attempted crime.

There is no evidence to determine the person, and there is no other circumstance to deem that the above seized article is subject to confiscation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which forfeited the above goods from the defendant is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and in this respect, the part of the judgment below as to No. 8 of the No.

However, above.