The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Seized evidence shall be confiscated as provided for in Articles 20 through 22.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection of 265,300 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination as to whether seized evidence 1 through 17 has been confiscated;

A. The court below sentenced Nos. 1 through 17 of the evidence Nos. 1 through 17 (T card V, S), 2 (AU card AV AVW), 3 (Postal Card No. 4 (AZ BA, BB), 5 (BD, BE), 6 (X card BF, BE), 7 of the evidence Nos. 8 (X card BG, BH), 9 (N card BI, BJ), 10 (X card), 11 (I Bank, K, H), 13 (BM), 13 (BP), BB card No. 14, BB card No. 17 (BT No. 14, BB card No. 15 (BT), 14, BU No. 17 (BT No. 14, BU No. 15 (BT), 17, BU No. 14, BU No. 15 (BT), 17, BU No. 14, BY No.

(b) Articles subject to confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act shall be those provided or intended to be provided for a criminal act, and they shall not belong to the possession of a person other than the criminal.

Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act provides that “a person who commits a crime” includes an accomplice, so not only the property owned by the defendant but also the property owned by the accomplice may be confiscated regardless of whether the accomplice is prosecuted by the accomplice. Here, the accomplice includes not only the co-principal, the person who commits the crime of aiding and abetting, but also the person who is in a necessary accomplice relationship (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5586 Decided November 23, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles, only the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was transferred or renounced by the title holder of the above physical check.

In addition, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above nominal persons are co-offenders in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

Therefore, as long as there is no evidence that each of the above physical cards satisfied the requirements for confiscation, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on the confiscated portion of subparagraphs 1 through 17 of the judgment below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3...