The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Seized evidence 1, 2, and 3 shall be confiscated.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal that the Defendant’s criminal history and damage were not recovered, the sentence of one year and six months sentenced by the lower court is so unfluened that the sentence of one year and six months is too unfluent, and the lower court erred by failing to confiscate the seized articles, which are the tools of

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a sentence identical to Paragraph 1 of the above Article, comprehensively taking account of the following: (i) favorable circumstances; (ii) the Defendant recognized his mistake and against himself; and (iii) the fact that the Defendant appeared to be a crime of a living penalty; and (iv) the fact that the Defendant had been punished for imprisonment for the same kind of crime several times in unfavorable circumstances; (iii) the Defendant began to commit each of the instant crimes again at least three months after the completion of the execution of the sentence; and (iv) the injury has not been properly recovered

In full view of the above circumstances and other arguments and records, the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been determined appropriately by fully considering the various sentencing grounds asserted by the prosecutor, and there are no special circumstances to the extent that the above punishment is changed.

Ultimately, the prosecutor's argument on the original sentence is rejected as it is without merit.

B. Determination as to the confiscation of seized articles 1) Since the confiscation under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act is arbitrary, the issue of whether it is possible to confiscate even an article that meets the requirements for the confiscation is left to the discretion of the responding court. However, it is subject to restriction by the proportionality principle applied to the general public.

In order to determine whether confiscation violates the principle of proportionality, the degree and scope used for the commission of this crime (hereinafter “goods”) and the importance of the crime; the role and degree of responsibilities of the owner of the goods in the commission of the crime; the degree of infringement of legal interests caused by the commission of the crime; the motive of the commission of the crime; the profits generated from the crime; and the goods.