The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by Defendant D or L (Defendant D: fine of 6.47 million won, Defendant L: fine of 6.77 million won) is unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the legal principles on confiscation (defendant B) and misunderstanding the legal principles on confiscation, but omitting the sentence of confiscation, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation, although the prosecutor was sentenced to confiscation No. 4 through 7.

2) The sentence that the lower court sentenced (10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order) was unfair (with respect to Defendant A and B) is deemed unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of the legal principles on confiscation (defendant B)

A. Since the confiscation under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act of the relevant legal principles is discretionary, it is left to the court's discretion whether it is not necessary to confiscate even an article that meets the requirements for confiscation, but is subject to limitations by the proportionality doctrine applied to the general penalty.

In addition, in order to determine whether confiscation violates the principle of proportionality, all the circumstances, 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 for 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 balance with the crime; whether the object is essential to the offender; whether the object is not confiscated; and the risk and degree of the risk of the commission of the same crime by using the object (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1586, May 23, 2013, etc.). (B) The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below based on the aforementioned legal principle should be confiscated.