The judgment below

Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

50,000 seized.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Since 50,00 won (No. 1) seized by misapprehending the legal principle is an object acquired through a criminal act, it must be confiscated by meeting the requirements for confiscation under the Criminal Act. However, the judgment of the court below which omitted such requirements is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to confiscation. 2) The sentence of the court below against the defendant of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of prosecutor

A. Since confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act is discretionary, the issue of whether to confiscate an object subject to confiscation (hereinafter “objects”) is left at the discretion of the court. However, the degree and scope used in the commission of the crime and the importance of the crime in order to determine whether the confiscation violates the principle of proportionality, the degree and degree of responsibility of the owner of the object in the commission of the crime, the degree of infringement of legal interests by the commission of the crime, separate possibility of separation of the part related to the commission of the crime, the actual value of the object, the relationship and balance with the object, whether the object is essential to the offender, and the risk and degree of the occurrence of the same crime in the event the object is not confiscated, etc. shall be considered by taking into account all the circumstances, including the degree and extent of the object used in the commission of the crime, the degree and degree of responsibility of the owner in the commission of the crime, the degree of infringement of legal interests by the commission of the crime, the degree of separation of the object related to the commission of the crime, the actual value and balance with the object, whether the object is essential to the offender.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do11586, May 23, 2013). B.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, 50,00 won (No. 1) is the object acquired through the instant criminal act and Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act.