The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant provided the crime of this case, but seized the knife of the defendant, and it must be confiscated in order to prevent the defendant with a mental disorder from committing another crime by using it, and even though the prosecutor was sentenced to confiscation, the court below erred by omitting the sentence of confiscation on the knife seized knife.

2. As the confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act is discretionary, the issue of whether to confiscate an article that meets the requirements for confiscation is attributable to the court’s discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do515, Sept. 4, 2002). Considering various circumstances such as the daily use of the seized knife and the degree of the relationship with the instant crime and the family relationship, the failure of the court below to pronounce confiscation on the seized knife cannot be deemed as going against the principle of proportionality as a result of exercising discretionary power, and it is difficult to deem that there is a ground to acknowledge that the amount of the seized knife is unfair.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.