beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Articles 1 through 51 and 53 through 53.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (a punishment of one year for imprisonment, confiscation of seized evidence 1 to 61, confiscation of 286,020,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, we examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal [the defendant's defense counsel filed an argument of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles that the only mobile phone of the Bulopopon (No. 61) seized on the date of the trial of the trial of the court of first instance on October 8, 2015 is not subject to the confiscation of the instant case. However, this is not entirely written in the grounds for appeal, as it is alleged in the appellate brief, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate grounds for appeal. However, the appellate court may decide ex officio, even if the grounds affecting the judgment are not included in the grounds for appeal. As such, it is possible to decide ex officio on the aforementioned grounds that the court is able to urge the ex officio judgment on the grounds that the aforementioned assertion is being made, and it shall be viewed that ex officio as to whether
Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act covers “goods provided or intended to be provided to a criminal act among those not belonging to a person other than the criminal person.” The phrase “goods provided to a criminal act” refers to goods that have been prepared to be used in the criminal act but have not been actually used. In light of the fact that the confiscation under the Criminal Act is sentenced in addition to other punishment in addition to the conviction against the defendant who is convicted of having committed the criminal act, it should be acknowledged that certain goods are “goods to be provided to the criminal act” and that the said goods are goods to be provided to the criminal act in order to confiscate.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10034, Feb. 14, 2008). Whether such forfeiture is subject to the elements of crime.