A. The prosecutor of the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine stated this as an unfair argument in sentencing on the grounds of appeal, but is deemed to be a misapprehension of the legal doctrine in its purport.

The court below did not confiscate Samsung Tallon, which was seized, as it was subject to forfeiture as a tool of crime in which Defendant B took rapes, etc., (No. 1, hereinafter “the instant mobile phone”). Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for forfeiture.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles, confiscation under the Criminal Act is a matter provided or intended to be provided for a criminal act, a matter that was produced by or obtained as a result of a criminal act, or an object that was acquired as such, and thus does not belong to a person other than the criminal, or an object that a person other than the criminal knowingly acquired after the crime is committed (Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act). Since confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act is discretionary, whether it would be possible to confiscate an object that meets the requirements for confiscation, even if it falls under the requirement for confiscation, is left at the discretion of the court (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do515, Sept. 4, 2002). In light of the above legal principles, the cell phone of the defendant B can be deemed as an object that was provided for a criminal act, but it is difficult to conclude that the cell phone of this case was used for any other purpose, not for this part of this case, but for a crime that was used only once, but for some unspecified crimes against the defendant B’s of this case’s cell phone.