The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, probation, social service, confiscation, and additional collection) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable that the lower court’s failure to confiscate one set of Samsung Ggal ju City J3 mobile phones (No. 10) that was seized for the instant crime is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial, and considering all the circumstances revealed in the record and oral argument of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is deemed unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion on this part is not accepted.

B. Since the confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, which determines the omission of confiscation, is discretionary, the issue of whether to confiscate even an article that meets the requirement of confiscation is attributable to the court’s discretion.

(2) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the discretionary authority in gallonce J3 mobile phones (No. 10) confiscated by the lower court, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the content of the instant crime acknowledged by the records of the instant case; (b) the Defendant’s disadvantage due to confiscation; and (c) the actual benefit of crime prevention prevented from confiscation.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion on this part is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.