The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the contents of a misunderstanding of facts investigation report (Attachment of Suspect B's Kakax dialogue) (Evidence No. 402 pages), the seized evidence No. 5 (gallon No. 41) was used for the crime of this case and omitted forfeiture of evidence No. 5, which is subject to forfeiture.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, and confiscation) against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In the original adjudication on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the criminal facts have been retained by being delivered the means of access with the knowledge that the Defendant would be used in the crime in collusion with A.

On the other hand, the contents of the investigation report (Attachment of Suspect B's Kakax dialogue) (Evidence No. 402) (Evidence Records) pointed out by the prosecutor are as follows: "The contents of the communication sent to the suspect after photographing the prior sheet of suspended payment, which the suspect B attempted to withdraw the amount of damage, among the cellular phone numbers used by the suspect B (authorized gallon No. 4) with the suspect in the cellular phone conversation contents (authorized gallon No. 4

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the evidence No. 5, which was seized solely based on the above investigation report submitted by the prosecutor, is an object of the instant crime. Even if the seized evidence No. 5, which is an object of the instant crime, is considered as an object of the instant crime, the confiscation pursuant to Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act is discretionary, and thus, the issue of whether to confiscate an object of the confiscation is attributable to the court’s discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do515, Sept. 4, 2002). Thus, it cannot be deemed that the court below’s failure to declare the confiscation of the seized object subject to voluntary confiscation is unlawful.

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts has no reason to see it.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the means of access.