All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the legal principles, the land and the building located in Nam-gu C at the time of the port of port provided for the instant arrangement business (Tgu District Court Pohang-gu District Court 2019 early 295) was preserved for forfeiture.

hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”

(2) The court below's decision that did not confiscate the real estate of this case on the ground that it is difficult to deem the Defendant as the actual owner of the real estate of this case even though the Defendant, who was a bad credit holder, was in title trust to D, who was the husband, was the Defendant. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for confiscation. 2) The above sentence sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing is too una

2. The lower court determined the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the instant real estate on the grounds that it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant, as the de facto owner of the instant real estate, was in title trust D, and did not render a sentence of forfeiture on the instant real estate.

Since the confiscation stipulated in Article 8 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment is discretionary, the issue of whether to confiscate property that meets the requirements for confiscation is attributable to the court’s discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3612, Sept. 8, 2006). Thus, even if the court below did not sentence the Defendant to confiscate the pertinent real estate preserved for forfeiture by Daegu District Court Port Branch 2019 early 295, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation, contrary to the prosecutor’s assertion, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2020Do3969, Jun. 4, 2020). Therefore, prosecutor’s allegation in this part is without merit.

3. The prosecutor and the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing.