beta
Text
The judgment below
The part concerning confiscation shall be reversed.
The remaining appeal by the defendant is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (a year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) on the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Ex officio determination as to confiscation 1) The lower court sentenced confiscation to the purport that the seized e-mail transportation card 1 (No. 1) and glock card 1 (No. 3) constitute “goods provided to criminal conduct” under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act.
2) Confiscation is limited to articles provided or intended to be provided for a criminal act, which are not owned by a person other than the criminal, or which are acquired by a person other than the criminal even after the crime was committed. In this case, “goods provided to the criminal act” is not limited to those used for the criminal act itself, and even if they are used for the act before the commencement of the act or after the completion of the act, they have contributed substantially to the execution of the criminal act.
In the case of recognition, the evidence Nos. 1 and 3, which are included in the items provided under the above provision of the law (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4075, Sept. 14, 2006) shall be limited to the means to move each of the above transportation cards to the place of the crime of this case as personal property owned by the defendant, and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below is insufficient to recognize that the evidence Nos. 1 and 3, which were lawfully adopted and investigated by the court below, was subject to confiscation as stipulated under each subparagraph of Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Act, such as the articles which were provided or intended to be provided for each of the crimes of this case, and there is no other evidence to support this, which is not subject to confiscation.
Since the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on confiscation, the part concerning confiscation in the lower judgment cannot be maintained any further.
B. The Defendant’s judgment on the wrongful assertion of sentencing leads to eight times the period of punishment for the same crime.
The defendant commits larceny over 14 times during the period of suspension of execution due to the same crime, and is living in order to commit it.