The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor of the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine stated in the petition of appeal and the statement of reasons for appeal that only “unfair sentencing” should be confiscated as an object provided for a crime, while only the seized evidence No. 1 should be indicated as the reason for appeal. Thus, it is obvious that the judgment below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to confiscation. Thus, it is to be determined by misunderstanding of the legal doctrine together with the allegation of misunderstanding

Although evidence No. 1 (one knife) which was seized is provided for a crime, it must be confiscated by meeting the requirements for confiscation under the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below which omitted such requirements is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the observation of protection, and the community service order 40 hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles of the prosecutor’s judgment, Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides that “the articles provided or intended to be provided to a criminal act” as objects that may be confiscated.

In this context, "goods provided for criminal conduct" means goods used for criminal conduct or conduct closely related to such conduct, and "goods to be provided for criminal conduct" means goods that have been prepared to be used for criminal conduct, but have not been actually used.

According to the records, subparagraph 1 (one knife) of seized evidence is an article used by the defendant to kill the victim by committing a crime of destroying the special property of this case and violating the Animal Protection Act, and the court below did not confiscate it even though it is obvious that it was an article provided to the crime of this case.

Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for confiscation or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion.