The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

except that from the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor regarding the embezzlement of the deserted articles among the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal doctrine, the part of the facts charged can be deemed as having been lost, and the Defendant had the intention of embezzlement of the separated articles in possession.

However, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the lost and intentional act of embezzlement, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and 120 hours of community service order) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio.

Seized stolen property, the reasons for return to the victim of which are apparent, shall be sentenced to return to the victim by judgment (Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act); it shall be deemed that seizure of the seized property is rescinded unless return to the victim is made by judgment (Article 332 of the Criminal Procedure Act); and the investigative agency shall return the seized property to the victim.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, subparagraph 1 (one monget 1) which was seized by the investigative agency from the defendant is a stolen stolen article obtained by the defendant due to the crime of larceny No. 2016 Go-Ba No. 2055-Ga, which was held in the judgment of the court below, and the reason for returning the victim's name to the victim is apparent (According to the records, at the time when the investigative agency seizes the above article from the defendant, it is recognized that the defendant prepared and submitted a letter of gift of ownership that the defendant renounces ownership to the investigative agency at the time of the seizure of the article from the defendant, but it is not exempt from the necessary return of the confiscated article by the investigative agency since each refusal of ownership by the confiscated person is invalid (see Supreme Court Order 94Mo51, Aug. 16, 1996). If the judgment of returning the above seized article to the victim is not pronounced.