The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Nos. 8 and 9 of seized evidence shall be charged to the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one hundred months of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable;

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act provides that an article that does not belong to a person other than the offender or acquired by a person other than the offender with the knowledge of the fact after the crime may be confiscated, and subparagraph 1 of the same Article provides that an article that may be confiscated may be “goods which have been provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime” and subparagraph 2 of the same Article “goods which have been produced or acquired by an act

The term "goods provided for an act of crime" in subparagraph 1 means goods used for an act closely related to an act of crime or an act of crime, and the term "goods intended to be provided for an act of crime" means goods prepared to be used for an act of crime but not actually used.

In addition, "goods acquired through criminal conduct" referred to in subparagraph 2 means the goods that had been in existence at the time of criminal conduct and have been obtained through criminal conduct.

Meanwhile, the proviso of Article 49 of the Criminal Act provides that “In a case where a judgment of conviction is not rendered against an accused person, confiscation may be ordered when the requisites for confiscation exist.” However, since there is no system under which confiscation can be ordered separately without institution of a public prosecution under our legislation, the requirements for confiscation should be related to the facts charged for which a public prosecution has been instituted, and it is not permitted for a court to recognize a separate criminal fact against which no public prosecution has been instituted and to pronounce confiscation or collection thereof as a result of violating the principle of no accusation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do700, Jul. 28, 1992; 2009Do11732, May 13, 2010). (b)

The records of this case.