The judgment below

The part concerning confiscation shall be reversed.

The judgment below

To the end, other than the part relating to confiscation.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and the victim of a misunderstanding of facts brought about a knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife that knife knife knife knife knife. The knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Articles provided or intended to be provided for ex officio criminal conduct on the part of confiscation, which do not belong to a person other than an offender, or which a person other than an offender knowingly acquired after the crime is committed, may be confiscated (Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act), and those which do not belong to a person other than an offender and which do not belong to any person.

The court below sentenced that the seized Nos. 1 (Food 1) should be forfeited from the defendant. According to the records of this case, it is reasonable to view that the above food knife was in the main room of C and was owned by C, and there is no evidence to support that the above food knife did not belong to any one of the above knife because C had renounced the ownership of the above knife, etc.

(The list of seizure contains all the holders, investors, and owners of the above knife as the defendant, and the waiver of the ownership of the above knife is written in the name of the defendant. The defendant also answers to the purport that he is the C main issue to ask questions as to who is the above knife at the time of the police investigation. Therefore, the court below's decision is a legal principle as to confiscation.