The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The articles that have been mistakenly or mistakenly confiscated are articles that the defendant provided or intended to provide for the crime, and thus, it should be confiscated because it is likely to be used again for another crime unless it is confiscated, so the court below did not sentence confiscation. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s exemption of the Defendant from the sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) As the confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act is voluntary, the issue of whether to confiscate the article is subject to the requirement of confiscation is left at the discretion of the court of first instance. However, in order to determine whether the article subject to confiscation is in violation of the principle of proportionality, 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 article in the commission of the crime, the degree of infringement of legal interests through the commission of the crime, motive for the commission of the crime, profits from the crime, the degree of separation of the part related to the commission of the crime, the actual value of the article, the relationship and balance between the crime and the victim, whether the article is not necessary for the actor, if the article is not confiscated, the offender is subject to limitations by the principle of proportionality applied to the general criminal law, and the following circumstances should be considered. (See Supreme Court Decision 201Do11586, May 23, 2013).