The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. First, we examine ex officio the determination.

The court below judged that subparagraph 1 of seized evidence (two cellular phones in gelel case) falls under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act (Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act), which was provided or intended to be provided for a criminal act, and sentenced the forfeiture thereof.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, namely, the defendant used the cell phone (number 010-822-5997) in the crime of this case under the name of Tae Young Esty Co., Ltd., and made a statement at the investigative agency that the above cell phone was abandoned, and the defendant stated that at the time when he was arrested by the investigative agency, the defendant used the cell phone (number R) in the name of S, which is a woman under the name of the defendant, with all of the cell phone (number t.) under the name of S, at the time when he was arrested by the investigative agency. According to the seizure protocol, 2 the cell phone was seized in the course of the arrest of the defendant, and according to the seizure list, 2 the above cell phone owners were recorded as the defendant. In light of the fact that the above 2 cell phone owners were recorded as the defendant, the defendant provided the criminal act

It is difficult to see that the goods were or intended to be provided, and it does not constitute other confiscation requirements.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which sentenced the defendant to confiscate is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to confiscation, which affected the judgment.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for ex officio reversal, and even if the court below did not sentence confiscation, if the confiscation of the court below is wholly unlawful, it is bound to reverse the whole judgment of the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do6410, Dec. 8, 2006). Thus, without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.