The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principle that held the forfeiture of opon (No. 2) that is not an object provided for a crime, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to deem that the opon color (Evidence No. 2) seized is offered or intended to be offered for the crime indicated in the facts charged in the instant case as prescribed in Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, even though the above opon cannot be deemed as a thing provided for a crime, it is not subject to confiscation, the judgment of the court below which sentenced the confiscation is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

This part of the defendant's argument is justified.

B. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the assertion of unfair sentencing as to the assertion of unfair sentencing is just a serious crime that has a significant adverse impact on our society, and its subordinate officers, such as collection books, withdrawal books, remittance books, etc., also play a significant role in the completion of the crime, and thus making it inevitable to severely punish them. The Defendant took part in the singing upon receiving a proposal from the employees of Bosing and receiving money from Korea. The Defendant was taking part in the singing and receiving a proposal that the Defendant may impose a large amount of money from the employees of Bosing and receiving a proposal that the victims may be punished for a large amount of money, and the amount of damage was limited to 43 million won in total (excluding the damage that was not actually caused by the attempted fraud)

However, the defendant did not lead the crime of this case, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected it, and the defendant took part in the crime of this case in the situation of economic difficulty in his own country.