The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

No. 33 of seized evidence to the victim B.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable;

2. We examine the defendant's grounds for appeal ex officio prior to the judgment

A. According to the records of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on January 11, 2019 to one-year imprisonment with prison labor for night, intrusion upon residence, larceny, etc. in the Daejeon District Court’s astronomical Branch, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 17, 2019.

However, since the above crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive and each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, punishment shall be determined in consideration of equity and equality in cases where judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act,

B. 1) As the stolens of the legal principles on the return of the victim, where the reason for return to the victim is apparent, the return to the victim shall be sentenced by judgment (Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). In addition, in the absence of a separate sentence against the stolens temporarily restored, a declaration of return shall be deemed to have been made. 2) As to the stolens No. 33 and No. 34 of the evidence seized No. 34, the victim B submitted a written waiver of ownership to the investigation agency (No. 287, No. 340 of the investigation record), and as to the seized evidence No. 34, the victim C submitted a written waiver of ownership to the investigation agency (No. 287, No. 340 of the investigation record). However, even if the person subject to the return loses substantive legal rights by waiver of ownership after the seizure, it cannot affect any duty of the investigation agency to return the confiscateds, and even if the investigative agency expresses its intent to waive its right to return under the Criminal Procedure Act, it cannot be deemed as a requisite exemption by the investigation agency.