The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Golf loans (No. 2) seized the summary of the grounds for appeal are those of the owner’s obscure goods used in the crime and satisfy the requirements for confiscation, but the judgment below which did not sentence confiscation for this, erred by mistake of facts and by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. The confiscation under the Criminal Act is an article provided or intended to be provided for a criminal act, an article produced by or acquired in consequence of a criminal act, or an article acquired in consideration thereof, which does not belong to a person other than the criminal, or an article which a person other than the criminal knowingly acquired after the crime is committed.

(Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act. However, according to the L’s written statement, the evidence Nos. 2 (golf loans) seized was merely kept in the 3rd shop of “D”, which is the place where the instant crime was committed, and the above articles cannot be deemed to be owned by the Defendant. Meanwhile, even if the place where they were kept, it cannot be ruled out that they were owned by the said person, and thus, they cannot be readily concluded to be owned by the owner.

Therefore, since subparagraph 2 of seized evidence does not constitute “goods owned by a person other than the criminal or acquired by a person other than the criminal knowing the fact after the crime was committed” under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, the prosecutor’s assertion on omission of the declaration of confiscation is without merit, since it cannot be deemed that it satisfies the requirements of confiscation.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.