beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, Defendant B's imprisonment with prison labor of one year and two months, and Defendant F.
Reasons
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (for defendant A, two years of imprisonment, one and half years of imprisonment, and one and half years of confiscation, defendant F: imprisonment, two years and six months of fine and fine, confiscation and collection) is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination on Defendant B and F
A. “Confiscation” of the relevant legal doctrine is a disposition to deprive the ownership of the goods charged with the crime and revert them to the National Treasury in addition to other punishment. Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides that “goods to be provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime” refers to goods that were prepared to be used for a criminal act but have not been actually used. In light of the fact that the confiscation under the Criminal Act is a sentence to be sentenced in addition to other punishment in addition to the conviction against the accused who was convicted of the charge of the crime, a certain article is “goods to be provided for an act of crime” and the said article is deemed to be a “goods to be provided for an act of crime” to be a “goods to be provided for an act of crime
(Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10034 Decided February 14, 2008). B.
Judgment
On December 12, 2014, at the time of emergency arrest by Defendant B, the lower court ordered each of the confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act against the divers (Evidence No. 9 and 10) kept inside the vehicle operated by the said Defendant at the time of emergency arrest by Defendant B, as well as the cellular phone (Evidence No. 2 to No. 7) kept inside the vehicle operated by the said Defendant, at the time of emergency arrest by Defendant B.
In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is difficult to find that the above seized articles are merely goods found inside or inside the defendants' vehicle, and they constitute goods provided or intended to provided for the crime of fraud of this case. There is no other evidence to find otherwise.
The court below is legitimate.