The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Subparagraph 1 (Aphone7) that has been seized of the summary of the grounds for appeal should be confiscated, and the sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) shall be deemed unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of confiscation

A. Since the confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act is discretionary, whether it is not necessary to confiscate an article that meets the requirements for the confiscation is at 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 Supreme Court Decision 2012Do11586 Decided May 23, 2013). B.

The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to whether the seized evidence No. 1 was confiscated, i.e., ① the evidence No. 1 seized is a mobile phone directly provided to a criminal act by the defendant using a camera in photographing the body of the victims; ② the victims of the instant case are 34 persons in total; ③ the victims of the instant case are more than 34 persons in total; ③ the victims’ photograph remains in violation of the legal interest; and the possibility of the seizure of the above pictures cannot be ruled out, and thus, there is a risk of infringement of other legal interests.