The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

The appeal was filed against the judgment of the first instance.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal is that each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and confiscation) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Ex officio determination on the confiscation of Defendant B 1) The relevant legal doctrine does not limit the “goods provided to a criminal act” under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act to those goods used for the commission of a crime, such as knife, etc. used for the murder act, and even if those goods are used for the act before the commencement of the commission or the act after the completion of the commission, they practically contributed to the commission of a criminal act.

As long as recognized under the above provision, goods are included in those provided under the above provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4075, Sept. 14, 2006) and Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides that "goods provided or intended to be provided for criminal acts" are "goods which were provided or intended to be provided for criminal acts". Here, "goods intended to be provided for criminal acts" refer to those which were prepared to be used for criminal acts but have not been actually used. In light of the fact that confiscation under the Criminal Act is sentenced to an additional punishment in a conviction against the defendant who is under criminal trial against the facts charged, it should be recognized that certain goods are "those which were intended to be provided for criminal acts" and "those which were intended to be provided for the pertinent criminal act as guilty (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1034, Feb. 14, 2008; 2007Do1034, Feb. 14, 2008).