The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

A seized one piece (No. 4) shall be confiscated.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, among the seized articles of this case, if the defendant did not actually use them for the crime of this case, he was in possession of an obstacle such as shock network when he intrudes upon another person's residence for the purpose of theft, or used them for tearing if the stolen article was cut into money. However, among the seized articles of this case, the test color cap (Evidence No. 1) among the seized articles of this case is limited to the article possessed by the bank at the time when the defendant was arrested, and the color tag (Evidence No. 3) of this case was weared by the defendant at the time of the crime of this case, and it is recognized that the community credit cooperative (Evidence No. 2) card (Evidence No. 2) was merely used when the defendant deposited the stolen cash into his account or withdraws it.

According to the above, among the seized articles of this case, it is reasonable to view that the provisional (Evidence No. 4) among the seized articles of this case is "the articles which were intended to be provided for an act of crime" subject to confiscation as stipulated by Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act. However, since the remainder of the authorized mar (Evidence No. 1), the community credit cooperatives mar card (Evidence No. 2), and the color mars (Evidence No. 3) do not constitute "the articles which were provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime" in the crime of larceny and intrusion upon residence, it cannot be subject to confiscation as stipulated by Article 48 (1) 1 of

Nevertheless, the lower court, based on Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, committed an unlawful act of forfeiture all of the seized articles of this case (Evidence Nos. 1 and 4), including the above evidence No. 1, 2, and 3, based on the foregoing evidence No. 48(1)1, thereby making it difficult to maintain the lower judgment in this respect.

3. The judgment of the court below is correct.