All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Although the prosecutor (i.e., misapprehending the legal principles or omitting judgment, the prosecutor sought a sentence of confiscation on the seized articles (one gallon road) from the defendant, the court below did not render a sentence of confiscation on the seized articles. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act or omitting the judgment on confiscation.

Dob. The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (i) As the confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act is discretionary, the issue of whether to confiscate even an article that meets the requirements for the confiscation is left at the discretion of the court.

(2) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the court below’s failure to impose a sentence for forfeiture on the seized articles is against the principle of proportionality, in view of the following: (a) the seized articles may be removed from the seized articles; and (b) the possibility of the same crime appears to be low; and (c) the court below’s failure to impose a sentence for forfeiture on the seized articles cannot be deemed to contravene the principle of proportionality.

Secondly, the prosecutor's above misapprehension of the legal principles or omission of judgment is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the Defendant committed the crime of fraud against the victim who was in an internal relationship, and thereafter, possessed the sexually related dynamics and photographs, the Defendant committed the attempted crime by demanding money from the husband, etc. of the victim, and the nature of the crime is very poor.

However, in the court below, the defendant paid 37 million won to the victim, additionally deposited 5 million won for the victim in the trial, and the defendant did not have any particular criminal record in addition to a fine imposed once due to the violation of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act, and reflects his mistake.