The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The seized LG G7 mobile phone (No. 1) and the seized LG G7 mobile phone.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing)

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. It is unfair that the sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too minor, and in particular, the seized evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 8 are not confiscated.

2. We examine both the defendant and prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing.

A. According to the record on the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing regarding confiscation, the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing was lawfully seized the LGG G7 mobile phone (No. 1), one verification document (No. 6), two document files (No. 7), two document files (No. 11) by the Chairman of the Financial Services Commission (No. 8).

The above seized articles are not subject to necessary confiscation but subject to discretionary confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, and whether they should be confiscated at the discretion of the court. Thus, even if the court below did not confiscate the above seized articles, it cannot be deemed unlawful merely by itself.

Meanwhile, according to the record, it is recognized that the defendant used the above confiscated mobile phone to make continuous contacts with the scaming operation staff, and the document files in the name of the Chairman of the Financial Services Commission are also transmitted through the above mobile phone, and the above confiscated forged document is a forged document in the name of the Chairman of the Financial Services Commission, which was caused by the defendant's crime of forging public document, and may be used for another crime if it is returned to the defendant.

Considering the above circumstances, since it is deemed necessary to confiscate the aforementioned mobile phone and forged documents confiscated, the lower court’s judgment that did not confiscate them is unreasonable and the Prosecutor’s allegation in this part is with merit.

However, it is difficult to view that there is a need to confiscate the seized documents as they are not so significant that they contributed to the crime of this case and return them to the defendant.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing on the main sentence (two years of imprisonment).