주거침입등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the reasons for appeal is that the original court’s punishment (one and half years of imprisonment for a maximum term of one year and six months, and one year of short term) is too unhued and unreasonable;
2. The crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant participated in the scaming crime organized and planned and served as a cash collection measure, and that the crime of this case is not good in the nature of the crime, and that there was no agreement with the victims, etc., by intrusion upon another person’s residence without considerable amount of damage.
On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, was the first offender, was a juvenile, and the fact that the victim D was temporarily returned one of the 10 million Won Won check to the victim is favorable to the defendant.
In addition, in full view of the arguments and records of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been appropriately determined by taking into account the above normal relationship and the grounds for sentencing alleged by the prosecutor, and there are no special circumstances to the extent that the sentencing is changed ex post facto, so the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit
[The prosecutor stated his opinion to the effect that the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 should be confiscated as in the indictment of the court below on the date of the first instance trial. However, considering the fact that the petition of appeal or the statement of grounds of appeal submitted by the prosecutor only contains the grounds for unfair sentencing that the sentence of the court below is too unjustifiable, and there is no ground for misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the confiscation, and that the confiscation under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act is discretionary, and thus, the issue of whether to confiscate even an article that meets the requirements for confiscation is left at the discretion of the court, and it does not seem that there is an error of law that deviates from the limits of discretion as to discretionary confiscation, the prosecutor'
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.