The sentencing of the lower court on the principal sentence (long-term six months of imprisonment, short-term four months) is too unhurd and unfair.

Although misunderstanding of facts as to the confiscated portion, misunderstanding of legal principles, seizure of unfair sentencing, and subparagraphs 6 (and 9) should be confiscated as "goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime", the court below's failure to confiscate it misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unfair sentencing.

As to the assertion of unfair sentencing on the main sentence of the plate, since the defendant intruded another person's store several times during the period of suspension of execution due to the previous and the previous suspension of execution, and stolen cash, etc., the defendant's liability for the crime is not minor.

However, in light of all the circumstances indicated in the instant case, such as the fact that the amount of damage caused by each of the instant crimes is too large, the sentence of suspension of execution was revoked due to each of the instant crimes, the fact that the victim was agreed with F when the victim was in the trial, and the Defendant is currently against the juveniles aged 15 years old at the present, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence is too unreasonable. Thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation in this part is without merit.

Since confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act on the part concerning confiscation, misunderstanding of legal principles, and the assertion of unfair sentencing as to the assertion of unfair sentencing is discretionary, the issue of whether to confiscate even an article that meets the requirement of confiscation is at the discretion of the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do515, Sept. 4, 2002). The court below's decision that did not confiscate Nos. 6 and 9 is deemed to be subject to voluntary confiscation, but it can be deemed to result in failure to exercise the above discretionary power, so there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

In addition, since the above objects can be easily sought from the time, there is little need to confiscate them.