The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of seized evidence from the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that three-year imprisonment with prison labor sentenced by the court below to the defendant.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the court below confiscated evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7 through 12, and 14 applied Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act. In order to be confiscated as "goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime" as "goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime" under the above provision, they must be the goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime, and there is no evidence to prove that the remaining seized articles except evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 seized are those provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime that the court below found guilty.

Nevertheless, since the court below confiscated the above seized articles from the defendant, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the court below cannot maintain any further.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground of the above ex officio reversal, and the judgment below is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by the court is identical to the facts charged and the summary of the evidence, and thus, it is citing them in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Articles 329 and 342 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. The proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, including the fact that the defendant, who recognized the instant crime, reflects his mistake.