The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the lower court, the prosecutor, on August 16, 2018, expressed his/her opinion that the above articles should be confiscated on the date of the lower court’s trial on August 16, 2018.

the court below held that the defendant's act of selling marijuana of this case constitutes an article to be provided or a fund to be provided for a narcotics crime.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of confiscation, which held that the forfeited articles are not subject to confiscation.

Although there is room to see that the purport of the argument is included in part of the misconception of facts, it has been adjusted that only the ground for appeal of misunderstanding of legal principles has been asserted according to

(2) Chapter 6 of vinyl fact-finding No. 7, No. 3 of vinyl fact-finding No. 8, No. 90,000 won No. 50,000 won No. 50,000 won No. 100,000 won No. 100,000 won No. 100,000,0000,0000 Vin fact-finding No. 87,000,000,000

B. The court below's sentence (one year of imprisonment (two years of suspension of execution), community service, 200 hours, and 209 million won) imposed on the defendant is unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle by the prosecutor

A. The main text of Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, on the premise of discussion, lists “goods provided or intended to be provided to an act of crime” (Article 1), “goods (Article 2) born or acquired by an act of crime” (Article 48(1)1, and “goods acquired by the consideration of the preceding 2,” provided that “those who do not belong to a person other than the criminal or acquired by a person other than the criminal knowing that they were aware of the fact after the crime was committed may be confiscated in whole or in part.”

On the other hand.