The judgment below

The part of the forfeiture shall be reversed.

From Defendant A, Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 7 to 19 of the evidence seized.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too heavy for each type of punishment (in case of Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and two months; confiscation; Defendant B’s imprisonment of ten months; and confiscation) that the lower court sentenced to the Defendants.

2. Determination

A. We examine the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the confiscation ex officio.

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Code provides that "the articles provided or intended to be provided to criminal acts" as objects that may be confiscated.

In this context, "goods provided for criminal conduct" means goods used for criminal conduct or conduct closely related to such conduct, and "goods to be provided for criminal conduct" means goods that have been prepared to be used for criminal conduct, but have not been actually used.

According to the records, in the case of Nos. 2 (Tallon No. 5, AD) and No. 5 (Tallon No. 4, AE) seized evidence, each of the above mobile phones, unlike the remaining mobile phones seized by the Defendants, did not be used for the crime of this case.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the aforementioned mobile phone was used in the instant criminal act (in the investigation record, 685 pages, 755 pages).

Nevertheless, the lower court confiscated the above Nos. 2 and 5.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for confiscation or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the forfeited part cannot be maintained.

B. The lower court’s judgment on the grounds of appeal is based on the favorable circumstances (such as confessions, the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding fines, and the fact that there are family members to support Defendant A) and unfavorable circumstances (a considerable period of time) as stated by the lower court on the grounds of sentencing, and the fact that multiple copies of the passbook have been distributed systematically for a considerable period of time, and the one distributed by the instant crime shall be used for malicious crimes, such as illegal gambling, and the