The judgment below

I reverse the forfeited portion.

Seized nets (Evidence No. 1), test color (Evidence No. 4), test color (Evidence No. 4).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in the state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to shock disorder, depression, etc.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 48(1)1 of the ex officio determination of the Criminal Code provides that "goods which have been, or are to be, provided for an act of crime" as objects that may be confiscated. The phrase "goods which have been, or are to be provided for an act of crime" refers to things which have been prepared to be used for the act of crime but have not been actually used. In light of the fact that confiscation under the Criminal Code is sentenced in addition to other punishment in addition to the conviction against the defendant who is under criminal trial, a "goods which are to be provided for an act of crime" and a "goods which are intended to be provided

(Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10034 Decided February 14, 2008). The lower court confiscated the net (Evidence No. 1), Switzerland pipeline (Evidence No. 2), excessive (Evidence No. 3), test color tag (Evidence No. 4), test color cap (Evidence No. 5), white mack (Evidence No. 6) that was seized by applying Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the seized watch (Evidence No. 1), test color (Evidence No. 4), test color (Evidence No. 5), white mack (Evidence No. 6), etc. are used when the defendant destroys a vehicle and steals the property. However, the seized lux pipe (Evidence No. 2) and excessive (Evidence No. 3) can be recognized as the fact that the defendant has concealed or attempted to do so without going to commit a crime (Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 172).

If so, the above increase.