The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court, in so determining, excluded the subject of confiscation on the ground that the number 14 and 12 of the Daepo Vehicle registration certificate, the 14 and the number 12 of the Daepo Vehicle, seized, were not owned by the Defendant; however, the person who acquired the Daepo Vehicle, which is entirely owned with the above seized articles, transferred the same under his name, constitutes an accomplice of the Defendant in the instant crime.

Since the above seized articles are also subject to confiscation.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, one hundred and sixty hours of community service, confiscation) is too uneasable and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The determination of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of forfeiture shall be an object which does not belong to the ownership of a person other than an offender or is acquired by a person other than an offender with the knowledge of the fact after the crime was committed. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the above seized object is an object which does not belong to a person other than an offender or an object which a person other than an offender acquired with the knowledge of the fact after the crime was committed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, it does not constitute the subject

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s crime of determining the allegation of unfair sentencing is not only limited to distributing “large-scale vehicles” in bulk, but also to forge and exercise a sales contract and to receive unfair special benefits from an insurance solicitor. In particular, the act of calculating “large-scale vehicles” is likely to facilitate other crimes, and thus, it is necessary to strictize it.

In addition, the defendant has been sentenced to a fine for the same crime.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant commits his crime.