The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Article 1 (Aphone 8) of the misunderstanding of the legal principle as to confiscation is a thing that was used for the crime of this case and that was provided for the crime of this case, and there is a need for seizure.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by omitting the declaration of confiscation as to subparagraph 1 of the seized evidence.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution of imprisonment for a period of eight months) by the lower court is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles as to 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 addition, 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 caused by the commission of the crime; motive for the commission of the crime; profit from the crime; separate possibility of the part related to the commission of the crime among the object; the substantial value of the object; the relation and 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

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

Judgment

Based on the above legal principles, the following facts and circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the seized evidence No. 1 is a mobile phone with the victim’s known body and image, and ② the victim’s aforementioned pictures are additionally provided.