beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the legal principles, the court below did not render a sentence of forfeiture as to No. 1 on the ground that No. 1, which is the seized article of this case, was destroyed and not existing, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court (a fine of KRW 10 million) on the Defendant is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act is arbitrary and thus, the issue of whether to confiscate is subject to the discretion of the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do515, Sept. 4, 2002). It cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that it did not confiscate it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do5010, Jun. 28, 2012; 2009Do6982, Jan. 28, 2010; etc.). Moreover, according to the records, evidence No. 1, which is the seized article of this case, may be sentenced only to cases where the seized article is existing, and it is obvious that the evidence No. 1, which is the seized article of this case,
B. Although the market price of the instant food manufactured, processed, or sold without filing a report on the assertion of unfair sentencing was 167,274,929 won in total, the Defendant reported on the food manufacturing and processing business on February 20, 2013, the Defendant has no penal power over suspension of qualifications or more, the Defendant has no criminal power due to the same kind of crime, the Defendant reflects his/her mistake, and other sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character, character, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair. Thus, the prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.