The judgment below

The part of the forfeiture shall be reversed.

Seized evidence shall be confiscated from the accused.

1. The decision of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination on the penalty for forfeiture. 1) Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act does not limit the “goods provided to a criminal act” to those goods used in the commission of a crime, such as knife, etc. used for murder, but does not limit to those goods used in the commission of a crime, such as knife, etc. used for the commission of a crime, and even if those goods are used for

As long as recognized, it includes items provided under the above Article (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4075, Sept. 14, 2006). The grounds for confiscation and collection, such as whether it is subject to confiscation or recognition of additional collection, are not related to the constituent elements of crime, so it is not necessary to prove strict proof, and it is also necessary to be recognized by evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do988, Apr. 7, 2006). The lower court provided or attempted to provide items under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant stated that No. 23 was not purchased with a forged card (the investigation record No. 515 pages), and No. 26 was the card it actually used (the investigation record No. 540 pages), rather than the forged card (the investigation record No. 540 pages), and the above seized articles were not the items provided for each of the crimes of this case. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is stipulated in each of the subparagraphs of Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Act, such as those which provided or attempted to provide the above seized articles for each of the crimes of this case.