The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Seized evidence 12 through 19 shall be confiscated.

1. According to the records on the defendant's appeal, since the defendant submitted a petition of appeal to the court below on February 4, 2020 after seven days from January 22, 2020, which was sentenced by the court below, was recognized, the defendant's appeal is unlawful since it was filed after the right to appeal expires.

Therefore, the appeal by the defendant shall be dismissed by decision in accordance with Articles 362(1) and 360 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the judgment of the court below is reversed on the ground of ex officio reversal as follows, the appeal by the defendant shall not be dismissed in separate text.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's appeal

(a) Summary of the grounds for appeal (in original case: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months and confiscation);

B. The lower court rendered ex officio determination as to whether the seized evidence Nos. 1 to 11 was confiscated pursuant to Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act with respect to each physical card (Evidence Nos. 1 to 11) in the name of X, F, V, L, false names, AF, R, and AM that was confiscated.

Articles subject to confiscation under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act shall be those provided or intended to be provided for criminal acts, and they shall not belong to any person other than the criminal.

The phrase “offender” under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act includes an accomplice. As such, not only the property owned by the defendant but also the property owned by the accomplice may be confiscated regardless of whether the accomplice is prosecuted by the accomplice. Here, the accomplice includes not only the co-principal, the person who constitutes the crime of aiding and abetting, but also the person who is in a necessary accomplice relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5586, Nov. 23, 2006). In light of the above legal doctrine, the health standup and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, transferred or renounced the ownership of each of the above

In addition, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above nominal owner is an accomplice for a crime of fraud or electronic financial transaction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, there is no evidence that each of the above seized articles satisfies the requirement of confiscation.