The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

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

except that this judgment.

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine in omitting the judgment of forfeiture of the seized evidence Nos. 1 through 7.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two years of probation, probation, and community service order 80 hours in October) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, confiscation under the Criminal Act is an article provided or intended to be provided for a criminal act, an article produced or acquired by a criminal act, or an article acquired in return for such an article not belonging to a person other than the criminal or an article acquired by a person other than the criminal after the crime is committed

(Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Code). Since confiscation under the Criminal Code is voluntary, the issue of whether to confiscate even an article that meets the requirements of confiscation is left to the court's discretion.

However, it is subject to the limitation by the principle of proportionality applicable to the general penal system (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1586, May 23, 2013). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it is reasonable to deem that the evidence seized by the investigative agency constitutes the goods provided or intended to be provided for the crime of forging the seal imprint of this case, the goods produced or acquired by the said criminal act, or the goods acquired as a result of such act, or the goods acquired as a consideration thereof. As such, the sentence of forfeiture cannot be deemed to violate the principle of proportionality, it is reasonable to confiscate each of the above seized articles in accordance with Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which omitted the confiscation of the above seized articles is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment.

3. If so, the prosecutor’s appeal is reasonable, and thus, the Criminal Procedure Act omitted the prosecutor’s decision on the argument of unfair sentencing.