The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

No. 1 of seized evidence shall be the victim AL.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is not habitually guilty of larceny.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to determining the Defendant’s grounds of appeal on the grounds of ex officio determination.

Seized stolen property, the reasons for return to the victim of which are apparent, shall be sentenced to return to the victim by judgment (Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and in cases of disposition of stolen property, delivery of those acquired in return for such disposition to the victim shall be sentenced by judgment.

(2) Article 33(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court below sentenced that the defendant's name shall be returned to the victim's name under Nos. 1 (10,00 won), 2 (2), 3 (2,00 U.S. dollars 5), 4 (2,00 U.S. dollars 5), 5 (27,00 Vietnam currency 1,00), 6 (1,00 U.S. dollars 1,00), 7 (1,00 U.S. dollars 1,00), 8 (1,00 U.S. dollars 1,00 U.S. dollars 1,00), 9 (2,00 U.S. dollars 1,00) as seized.

In other words, the circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., the Defendant stated in an investigative agency to the effect that “the evidence Nos. 1 that was seized” was stolen from the old age of North Korea on December 12, 2013, and that “the money that was sold to the bank is stolen from the abandoned or parked vehicles,” and that “the seized evidence Nos. 2 through 9 are stolen from the abandoned or parked vehicles,” and ② the seized evidence No. 1 is specified as the price for disposal of stolen goods listed in No. 16 of the crime list No. 16 of the lower judgment, the place where the Defendant stated, consistent with the place where the crime was committed, and thus, should be delivered to AL, and the seized evidence Nos. 2 through 9 cannot be deemed as stolen goods of this case.

Therefore, the lower court was confiscated as the subject of the victim delivery.