The judgment below

I reverse the forfeited portion.

Seized evidence 3 through 5 shall be confiscated.

The remainder of the defendant.

1. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation and collection) to the gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

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

In order to declare confiscation, the seized articles must exist. According to the records, the whole quantity of the seized articles in this case’s green leafs presumed to be marijuana in subparagraphs 1 and 2 was requested to the National Science Investigation Agency (Evidence No. 148-149 of the Evidence No. 148 through 149 of the Evidence No. 25) and the facts that all were consumed in the appraisal procedure (Evidence No. 250-2 of the Evidence No. 252 of the Evidence No. 250 of the Record). Since each of the above seized articles was not existing at the time the judgment of the court below was sentenced, the court below was unable to pronounce a judgment of confiscation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6982, Jan. 28, 2010). Thus, since the court below sentenced each of the above confiscated articles which were already destroyed and not existing, it erred

B. We examine the assertion of unfair sentencing, and consider the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, as well as various conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., and thus, the sentence of the court below is deemed appropriate. The defendant's above assertion is without merit, since it is recognized that the defendant's punishment is appropriate, in consideration of various conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive of the crime, means and consequence, etc., before one month has passed since the period of repeated crime due to the same kind of crime was terminated.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is a ground for ex officio reversal of the confiscated part of the judgment below.