All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) In the process of arresting the Defendant as a flagrant offender without a warrant by the investigative agency, the Defendant seized four credit cards and one mobile phone from the Defendant without a warrant, and there is no evidence to deem that the warrant of seizure was issued later. As such, the evidence of seizure and the list of seized articles, and the photograph of seized articles submitted by the prosecutor as evidence, are inadmissible by illegally collected evidence, and there is no evidence of reinforcement other than the confession of the Defendant unless the above

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it is recognized that, on April 14, 2014, an investigative agency arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender at around 09:50, and seized the cash card 4 and a cell phone 1 without a warrant, and that the warrant of seizure was issued by the court by requesting for a seizure warrant within 48 hours thereafter.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The instant crime of determining unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor itself is not only an act detrimental to the trust and safety of financial transactions, but also an act that is used for a large-scale financial fraud crime, such as Bophishing, and the fact that the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime is disadvantageous.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the crime and committed a mistake; (b) there is no record of the heavy punishment exceeding a fine; (c) there is no benefit of the Defendant from the crime of this case; and (d) there is no change of circumstances that should change the punishment of the lower court in the trial; and (c) other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct; (d) motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., on which the lower court’s punishment is heavier