All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court did not confiscate the prosecution’s forfeiture of evidence No. 1, which had been erroneous and confiscated by misapprehending the legal doctrine, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Since the confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act based on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding is discretionary, the issue of whether to confiscate an article that meets the requirements for the confiscation is left to the court’s discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do8194, Jul. 26, 2018). Therefore, even though the prosecutor was sentenced to confiscation, the prosecutor did not confiscate it, or did not state specific reasons for not confiscation.

of this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles

subsection (b) of this section.

Furthermore, I will examine the prosecutor's assertion to the effect that it is necessary to confiscate evidence No. 1.

The evidence No. 1, for which the prosecutor seeks confiscation, is the mobile phone (opon XR) held by the defendant at the time of arrest, and the defendant was ordered to commit a specific crime by the person in whose name the defendant was the above mobile phone, so the above mobile phone constitutes an article provided for the crime of this case.

However, the above mobile phone was used for daily life by the defendant, and it appears that there were considerable numbers of personal information of the defendant not related to the crime of this case, such as contact numbers and photographs of the defendant, in addition to the information related to the crime of this case, and as long as it had already been extracted and analyzed the information related to the crime of this case on the above mobile phone during the investigation process, there is a special reason to confiscate the above mobile phone from

I do not see.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that did not confiscate the evidence No. 1 is just.