The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is unreasonable that the court below did not confiscate the evidence 1 to 15, 17 that was confiscated by the court below.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended execution for one year of imprisonment, two years of community service, 200 hours of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the assertion of omission in confiscation

A. Since confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act is discretionary, the issue of whether to confiscate even an article that meets the requirements for confiscation is left to 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, all the 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 caused by the commission of the crime; the motive of 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 the relation and balance with the crime; whether the object is not necessary for the actor; and if the object is not confiscated, whether the actor is likely to re-

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do11586, May 23, 2013). B.

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below did not render a sentence of confiscation as to Nos. 1 through 15, and 17, which were seized from the defendant without any particular reasons, but among the reasons, the "application of statutes" in the last part of the judgment below is stated in the relevant statute as the grounds for confiscation. Thus, the court below did not make a sentence of confiscation in the disposition merely by mistake.