The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) The lower court, while recognizing the Defendant guilty of committing an attempted crime, did not confiscate subparagraph 1, which the prosecutor attempted to confiscate as a tool used in the commission of the crime. Such determination by the lower court is unlawful as it deviates from the bounds of discretionary authority as to the determination of confiscation, and is therefore unlawful. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

B. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of prosecutor

A. Since confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act is discretionary, the issue of whether to confiscate an object subject to confiscation (hereinafter “objects”) is left at the discretion of the court. However, the degree and scope used in the commission of the crime and the importance of the crime in order to determine whether the confiscation violates the principle of proportionality, the degree and degree of responsibility of the owner of the object in the commission of the crime, the degree of infringement of legal interests by the commission of the crime, separate possibility of separation of the part related to the commission of the crime, the actual value of the object, the relationship and balance with the object, whether the object is essential to the offender, and the risk and degree of the same crime if the object is not confiscated, etc. shall be considered in all the circumstances, including the degree and degree of use in the commission of the crime, the degree and degree of responsibility of the owner of the object in the commission of the crime, the degree of infringement of legal interests by the commission of the crime, the degree of separation of the object related to the commission of the crime, the actual value of the object, whether the object is essential to the offender,

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

Judgment

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the seized evidence No. 1, which is a mobile phone of the defendant, provided for the crime of Bophishing as a mobile phone, and ② the defendant is returned to the court below.