The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

1. The grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) asserts that the Defendant is too unafford by the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) and that the prosecutor is too unafford and unfair.

2. In full view of the arguments and the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of the instant case, including the role of the Defendant in the instant crime, the criminal punishment records, the frequency and scale of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, career, family relationship, motive for the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment appears to be unreasonable. As such, the Defendant’s assertion on unfair sentencing is reasonable, and the Prosecutor’s assertion on this is without merit

3. The judgment below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following decision is rendered after pleading, as the defendant's appeal is with merit.

(3) Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “If an appeal by a defendant is reversed on the ground that the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the appeal by the prosecutor shall not be dismissed in separate order).” (Reasons for multi-use judgment) Criminal facts and summary of evidence, the facts constituting an offense recognized by the court and summary of evidence are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense and Articles 330, 30, 319 (1), and 30 of the Criminal Act that choose a punishment (the points of intrusion upon residence and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;