The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentencing of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) on the principal sentence is too unhurd and unfair.

Although subparagraph 6 (No. 3 business day) of the misunderstanding of facts as to the confiscated portion, misunderstanding of legal principles, and evidence seized of the allegation of unfair sentencing should be confiscated as “goods provided or intended to be provided for an act of crime” or “goods produced or obtained by an act of crime”, the lower court’s failure to confiscate it has erred by misapprehending of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles,

Considering the fact that there is no previous conviction on the assertion of unfair sentencing regarding the main sentence on the market, which is subject to a punishment heavier than that of the same previous conviction and fine, the extent of alteration is relatively minor, and all other circumstances that serve as the conditions for the sentencing specified in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable. Therefore, this part of the Prosecutor

Since confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act on the part concerning confiscation, misunderstanding of legal principles, and the assertion of unfair sentencing as to the assertion of unfair sentencing is discretionary, the issue of whether to confiscate even an article that meets the requirement of confiscation is at the discretion of the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do515, Sept. 4, 2002). The court below's decision that did not confiscate No. 6 of the evidence 2002 can be seen as a result of a failure to exercise the discretionary authority, even if the above article is deemed subject to voluntary confiscation, and therefore, there is no error

In addition, the issue of this case is not whether or not the defendant operated the game room, but whether or not to adjust the basic probability rate of the game machine, and No. 6 of this case is not directly related to the above alteration and has economic value in itself as it is not directly related to the above alteration.

or for other crimes.