The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Nos. 1 and 2 of seized evidence from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the petition of appeal and the statement of reasons for appeal, the prosecutor of the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine stated that only the “unfair sentencing” should be confiscated as an object provided for a crime, while the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 seized is indicated as the reason for appeal. Thus, it is obvious that the judgment below is an assertion to the effect that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to confiscation. Thus, the court below’s determination is made together

Since evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (one set and one set) seized are provided for a crime, it shall meet the requirements of confiscation under the Criminal Act and be confiscated. However, the judgment of the court below omitted, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation.

B. The lower court’s sentence (six months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides for “goods provided or intended to be provided to a criminal act” 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, the articles seized Nos. 1 and 2 (one watch, one draber) are articles used by the defendant to destroy the entrance correction device in the crime of larceny of this case, and the court below did not confiscate them even though the articles offered or intended to be offered to the criminal act of this case are obvious.

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, this point is pointed out.