The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since evidence No. 1 (k) which has been wrongfully confiscated was provided for the instant crime, the lower court did not confiscate it, even though it should be confiscated.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Since the confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act of the judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts is discretionary, the issue of whether to confiscate even an article that meets the requirement of confiscation is left at the discretion of the court (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do515, Sept. 4, 2002). Considering the various circumstances, such as the daily use of the seized knife and the possibility of recidivism, it cannot be said that the failure of the court below to sentence the seized knife is unlawful beyond the limit of the discretionary authority.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's previous decision on the argument of unfair sentencing is based on the fact that there is a previous error in the judgment of unfair sentencing, and the fact that the victim was injured by knife and the crime is not good.

However, considering the fact that the Defendant did not have any criminal record exceeding the fine, the fact that the investigative agency agreed with the victim, the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected, and other various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, degree of damage, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

4. 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.