The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. One cellular phone ( Soviet Soviet ju in Samsung Tgal ju) confiscated from the Defendant omitted from the pronouncement of confiscation is a thing provided for the crime and subject to confiscation, the lower court erred by omitting the sentence of confiscation.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service order 120 hours) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of omission in the pronouncement of confiscation, the confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act is arbitrary, so the issue of whether to confiscate even an article that meets the requirement of confiscation depends on the court’s discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do515, Sept. 4, 2002). In light of the content of the crime of this case and the fact that the defendant had already deleted a photograph related to the crime stored in the aforementioned mobile phone, the court below’s failure to sentence the above mobile phone subject to voluntary confiscation cannot be deemed unlawful or unreasonable, and thus, the prosecutor’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. In full view of all the circumstances surrounding the motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the age of the Defendant, sexual conduct, environment, etc., and all the circumstances constituting the conditions for the sentencing specified in the record and pleadings, the sentencing of the lower court is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the lower court is too uneasible, as stated by the lower court.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.