The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a maximum term of one year and a short term of eight months.

Nos. 1 through 3 of seized evidence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment for a maximum term, eight months) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

In addition, the lower court omitted the declaration of forfeiture of seized articles (Evidence Nos. 1 to 3).

2. Determination on the prosecutor’s assertion of omission in confiscation

A. Since 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 confiscation is left to the discretion of the court of first instance.

However, it is restricted by the principle of proportionality as applied to the general penalty.

In order to determine whether confiscation violates the principle of proportionality, various circumstances should be taken into account such as the degree and scope used in the commission of the crime and the importance of the crime; the role and degree of responsibility of the owner of the object in the commission of the crime; the degree of infringement of legal interests and interests arising from the commission of the crime; the motive for the commission of the crime; the profit from the crime; the separate possibility of the part related to the commission of the crime among the object, the substantial value of the object and its balance with the actual value of the object; whether the object is not necessary for the actor; and if the object is not confiscated, whether the actor has danger of again

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do11586, May 23, 2013). B.

Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court’s failure to sentence the forfeiture of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 without any particular reason violates the principle of proportionality. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on forfeiture, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1) A certificate of employee of the Financial Supervisory Service seized (Evidence 1 and the Chairman of the Financial Services Commission.