The judgment below

The part of the confiscation against the defendant is reversed.

The number of our physical cards seized (the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office.).

1. The lower court’s sentence (one and half years of imprisonment, and confiscation) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court ex officio held that one new bank passbook (No. 190 No. 1 of the current branch offices of the Suwon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, No. 2017 pressure No. 190), one new physical card (part of the evidence No. 2 of the current branch office of the Suwon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, No. 2017 pressure No. 190), 500 cash worth 50 million won (No. 3 of the evidence No. 190 of the current branch office of the Suwon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, No. 2017 pressure No. 190), which was seized, was sentenced to confiscation of the new bank passbook that was seized, and this shall be examined ex officio as to whether the confiscation is legitimate.

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts are found in the defendant's arrest at the defendant's residence; the fact that each of the above articles was seized; the above 25 million won was recorded as criminal proceeds in the seizure protocol (Evidence No. 373-2 pages); and the defendant's answer in the police against the investigator's question, "the police officer's books of account related to the crime while searching and searching the suspect's residence; the cell phone (spophone) used for the crime; cash No. 25 million won as criminal proceeds; passbook No. 25 million won as criminal proceeds; and the check No. 382 of the evidence record)" is acknowledged (Evidence No. 382).

3) However, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the new bank passbook and the new bank check in the name of the Defendant confiscated at the lower court and the trial court did not have used it for the instant crime, and that the amount of KRW 25 million seized was cash in order to pay taxes imposed in the course of operating other businesses, and that it did not constitute earnings from the instant crime. However, the Defendant used the passbook and the check card in the name of E, R, Q in the instant crime at an investigative agency.

The statement consistent with the defendant's statement, E, R, Q, etc. is consistent with the defendant's statement, and according to the standard tax return and tax amount return submitted by the defendant to the court below, the notice of tax payment, etc., the seizure of this case is made.