The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

One cell phone (the Suwon District Public Prosecutor's Office) that has been seized.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) Prosecutor ① The lower court’s failure to confiscate the mobile phone provided to the Defendant for the instant crime is unreasonable.

(2) The punishment of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (three years of imprisonment) shall be too unhued and unreasonable.

2) The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. A mobile phone (IMF-N935S) with the judgment on the omission of the prosecutor’s seizure was used for the instant crime as owned by the Defendant (No. 1189 annual pressure No. 1189 of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office, No. 2017).

Therefore, the aforementioned mobile phone constitutes “goods provided for criminal acts” under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act and is subject to confiscation.

3. The defendant's major role in the crime of this case in collusion with the Bosing staff, and the crime of Bosing, such as this case, has been systematically and systematically conducted, and it is disadvantageous to the fact that it is necessary to singing with social malicious behavior.

On the other hand, the following facts are favorable to the defendant.

The defendant is led to confession and reflect on his own crime.

The Defendant, at the lower court, agreed with seven victims of the crime list Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 in the lower court, and agreed with three victims of the crime Nos. 3, 4, and 7 in the court, respectively.

The victims have not been punished by the defendant after receiving full or partial payment of the damages.

In 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,000 due to a violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation, and there is no particular criminal history.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the circumstances of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, etc. as shown in the instant records and arguments, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.