The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

The defendant shall obtain money from the applicant for compensation on 29.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment, additional collection KRW 30,047,379) is too unreasonable;

2. We examine the part of the judgment of the court below on the collection ex officio.

A. In applying Article 6(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation and Restoration of Corruption Property (hereinafter “Corruption Property Confiscation Act”), the lower court rendered a judgment to additionally collect KRW 30,047,379 from the Defendant regarding property damaged by the crime of this case.

B. In principle, since property damaged by a crime is subject to return or delivery, it is not subject to forfeiture or collection. However, Article 6 of the Act on Forfeiture of Decomposed Property provides for forfeiture or collection of property damaged by a specific criminal act and return of property damaged by a crime subject to forfeiture or collection in order to protect the victim.

However, even if a crime victim's property is confiscated or collected pursuant to the above provision, this provision is likely to infringe on the property right of the crime victim whose legal interest is protected by the law, and thus, it is demanded to satisfy the requirement of "where it is deemed that the crime victim is extremely difficult to recover damage, such as where it is unable to exercise the right to claim for return of property or the right to claim for damage against the crime victim with respect to the crime victim's property."

In addition, there is a possibility that the money collected through this provision may rather delay the recovery of damage due to the relationship to be returned to the victim through a separate procedure. Therefore, if it is recognized that the crime victim has the intent and ability to recover damage, it is necessary to refrain from the intervention of public authority through the application of this provision.

Therefore, it is not possible to exercise the right to claim the return of property or the right to claim the damages.