The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and nine months.

Part V of the seized documents of the Financial Services Commission.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) against the Defendant (unfair imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the legal principles (Omission of Confiscation) No. 1, a forged official document under the name of the Chairperson of the Financial Services Commission forged by the defendant, and thus, constitutes an article provided or intended to be provided to the defendant for the crime

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by omitting the pronouncement of forfeiture of the above seized articles.

2. Determination on the prosecutor’s assertion of omission in confiscation

A. Since the confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act is discretionary, whether it is not necessary to confiscate an article that meets the requirements for the confiscation is at the discretion of the court of first instance.

However, it is restricted by the principle of proportionality as applied to the general penalty.

In order to determine whether confiscation violates the principle of proportionality, various circumstances should be taken into account such as the degree and scope used in the commission of the crime and the importance of the crime; the role and degree of responsibility of the owner of the object in the commission of the crime; the degree of infringement of legal interests and interests arising from the commission of the crime; the motive for the commission of the crime; the profit from the crime; the separate possibility of the part related to the commission of the crime among the object, the substantial value of the object and its balance with the actual value of the object; whether the object is not necessary for the actor; and if the object is not confiscated, whether the actor has danger of again

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do11586 Decided May 23, 2013). B.

In this case, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the seized evidence No. 1 is a forged official document under the name of the Financial Services Commission, which printed out documents received by the Defendant from the e-mail staff member of Bosing Tris, and the Defendant is such forged official document.