The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (five years of imprisonment) in light of various sentencing conditions in the instant case’s summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal, we examine ex officio whether the return of victim to the lower judgment is lawful.

As stolen property seized, the reason for return to the victim is clear shall be sentenced to return to the victim by judgment (Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act); the stolen property refers to the stolen property acquired due to property crime, which can be legally sought by the victim; and if there is any doubt about the right to request delivery of stolen property, it cannot be deemed clear that return will be made if there is little doubt about the right to request delivery of stolen property.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, one copy (No. 10), two copies (No. 5,000 won of cultural products products, one copy (No. 14), one copy (No. 15), one copy (No. 15), four copies (No. 16) of transportation cards in Daegu Metropolitan City, which were acquired through the theft of this case, are not acquired as consideration by disposing of the stolen goods or stolen goods. It is not clear that the seized Bank of Korea only KRW 64 (No. 6), one copy of KRW 141 (No. 7), two copies of KRW 1,000 (No. 8), two copies of KRW 1,000 (No. 9), the Bank of Korea KRW 1,000 (No. 17), and the victim’s name, No. 1,000 (No. 18,000) shall be returned to the victim. Thus, it is not clear that the amount of the above stolen goods should be returned to the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in returning each of the above seized articles to the victim's name in this regard.