A. The sentence of the lower court (a long-term of two years and short-term of one year and six months, confiscation, destruction, and order to complete a program) is too heavy.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that allowed the disposal of a cell phone image instead of the forfeiture of a cell phone, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court is too minor.

2. Determination

A. Article 48(1)2 of the Criminal Act provides that a part of the special media records, such as electronic records, etc., shall be destroyed if such records constitute confiscation.

Even if the above requirement of confiscation is satisfied, it belongs to the discretion of the judge whether the confiscation should be made, whether the confiscation should be made, or whether the confiscation should be made, or if the confiscation is made, part of the things (see Supreme Court Decision 71Do1537, Nov. 9, 1971). The court below ordered the confiscation of one cell phone of Samsung Electronic Empt 3 (S/NC) and one cell phone (Evidence 2) confiscated pursuant to Article 48(1)2 of the Criminal Act, instead of ordering the confiscation of one cell phone of Samsung Empt 3 (S/NC). In addition, the court ordered the destruction of the video of the video recorded in paragraph (3) of the criminal facts stored in the cellular phone pursuant to

Considering the circumstances such as the background and contents of the instant crime, the characteristics of the subject of the confiscation, the disadvantage of the Defendant caused by the confiscation, and the practical benefits from the prevention of the crime that is prevented by the confiscation, such determination by the court below is legitimate within the scope of discretion. Even if the prosecutor pointed out that technical difficulties exist in destroying the above video, such circumstance alone is difficult to view otherwise.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

It is difficult to see it.

B. Determination of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor becomes a condition for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act on the basis of statutory penalty.