The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Seized evidence 1 to 8 shall be confiscated.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (for a period of one year and two months of imprisonment, 3 years of suspended execution, 1 through 8, 12 through 14, 6,000 additional collection, 6,000 additional collection) is too heavy or too excessive (a prosecutor).

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor prior to the judgment.

Pursuant to Article 48(1)1 and 2 of the Criminal Act, and the main text of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act (hereinafter “Narcotic Control Act”), the lower court sentenced the Defendant to forfeiture stipulated in subparagraphs 1 through 8, and 12 through 14 of the evidence under Article 48(1)2 of the Criminal Act.

The main text of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act provides that "temporary narcotics and facilities, equipment, funds, or means of transportation provided for any crime prescribed in this Act, and profits accrued therefrom shall be confiscated."

In addition, Article 48(1)1 of the former Criminal Act provides that “any article that has been, or intends to be, provided for a criminal act” as an article that may be confiscated. In order to confiscate a certain article, it should be recognized that the article is an article that has been, or is to be, provided for a criminal act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10034, Feb. 14, 2008, etc.). In such a case, there is no evidence to prove that the lower court either provided or intended to be provided for a criminal act that the lower court found guilty.

B. It does not seem that the said article was produced by or acquired by the said criminal act.

Rather, according to the appraisal document submitted by the prosecutor, it is only recognized that the above article did not detect marijuana ingredients.

Nevertheless, since the court below confiscated the above goods from the defendant in accordance with each of the above provisions, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to confiscation.