1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months;

3.Provided, That the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the imprisonment of eight months and two years of suspended execution) is too unhued and unfair.

B. It is unreasonable that the lower court did not confiscate Samsung mobile phone (No. 1) that was confiscated by the lower court.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case as to whether the sentencing was unfair or not is committed is found to be committed by the Defendant’s indecent act by force against the victim D, who is an employee at the place of marina business, and the Defendant attempted to take a shower appearance of the employee E (a person) who was shower in the toilet at the above business place, and thereby, inflicted an injury on the victim D (a person under provisional name) who observed the defendant’s above photographer, and the crime was not committed, and the Defendant did not receive a shower from the victims.

However, it is also recognized that the defendant recognizes his mistake and reflects all of his mistake, that is the first offender who has no criminal history, and that the degree of injury of the victim D (tentative name) is relatively weak.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, etc.; and the fact that there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court is not unfair.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. 1) As the confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act is voluntary, the issue of whether the confiscation is to be made even the goods subject to the confiscation requirement (hereinafter “goods”) is left at the discretion of the court. However, it is restricted by the principle of proportionality applicable to the general penalty (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8174, Apr. 24, 2008). In order to determine whether the confiscation violates the principle of proportionality, the degree and scope used for the commission of the crime, the importance of the crime, the owner of the goods, and the ownership of the goods.