All of the appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants and Defendant B are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment and confiscation) against Defendant B is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor asserts that the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and two months, and additional collection of one hundred thousand won, Defendant B’s imprisonment of ten months, and confiscation) is too unfluent and unreasonable (the Prosecutor asserts that one cell phone of No. 11, which was seized from Defendant A at the first trial date of the trial of the first instance, should be confiscated, and one cell phone of No. 10, which was seized from Defendant B, should be confiscated, respectively.

This assertion can not be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal, as it was raised only after the lapse of the period for submission of the written reason for appeal.

According to the records, each of the above mobile phones was used to commit the crime of attempted trade of the instant phiphones by communicating the Defendants with each of the above mobile phones and with the purchaser.

However, Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act provides that "temporary narcotics and facilities, equipment, funds or means of transportation provided for any crime prescribed in this Act, and profits accrued therefrom shall be confiscated.

“The above mobile phone can not be deemed to be subject to necessary sunset pursuant to the above provision, and the court below's decision did not sentence forfeiture of seized articles.

such violation of the above law.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. A mobile phone also constitutes a criminal act subject to voluntary confiscation stipulated in Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act; however, whether to confiscate an article that meets the requirements for confiscation depends on the court’s discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do515, Sept. 4, 2002). Thus, the court below’s failure to sentence the confiscation of the seized article subject to voluntary confiscation cannot be deemed unlawful.

Therefore, even if we look at ex officio, there is no error in the judgment of the court below as alleged by the prosecutor.