The judgment below

The part of the forfeiture shall be reversed.

Nos. 1, 3 through 8, of seized evidence, respectively, from the accused.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, 1, 3, 4, 5, and 16 million won additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In the misapprehension of the legal principle, the lower court did not sentence forfeiture of the seized evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 8. 2) The lower court’s above sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

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

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.

According to the detailed decision-making records, 9 forms of paper, 1027 copies (Evidence 6), 1027 copies (Evidence 7), and 1 monitors (Evidence 8) are items provided for the instant crime, which are obviously subject to voluntary confiscation pursuant to Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, and it cannot be readily concluded that there is no possibility that the Defendant would prevent re-offending by using the same, unless it is confiscated.