The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Seized evidence shall be confiscated as provided for in subparagraphs 5 through 10.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, without knowledge of the act of fraud such as D, withdraws money according to his direction. Thus, it cannot be deemed that he participated in the act of fraud, and even if not, the lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the degree of the Defendant’s participation, etc.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal ex officio, Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the head of the seized stolen property and the reason for return to the victim is clear shall be returned to the victim by judgment. According to the records, subparagraph 1 of the seized evidence (No. 167 page 167) can be recognized as the stolen property of which the defendant withdraws the money that the victim acquired by transfer from the victims due to the instant crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6256, Dec. 9, 2010). Thus, the court below erred by omitting this, even though it had been returned to the victims.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

Furthermore, Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act provides that an article which does not belong to 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 can be confiscated, and that "the article provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime" in subparagraph 1 is an article which can be confiscated. According to the records, each card referred to in subparagraphs 5 through 10 of the evidence seized is an article used for the crime of this case, and it does not belong to the ownership of the defendant or a person who does not participate in the crime of this case.

Meanwhile, Article 48(1) of the Criminal Code constitutes a voluntary confiscation, and thus, the judgment of the court below that did not confiscate the above Nos. 5 through 10 cannot be deemed unlawful, but as seen earlier, this Court has a ground for ex officio reversal in the judgment of the court below.