The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each telephone (No. 1 and 2) confiscated by 2015No. 1070 at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office (No. 1 and 2) is not an article provided or intended to be provided for criminal conduct.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a confiscation on each of the above telephone calls. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Whether a judgment of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is subject to confiscation or collection, or recognition of the amount of additional collection, etc., are not related to the constituent elements of a crime, and thus, it is not necessary to prove strictly, but it is also recognized by evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4708, Jul. 10, 2014). The goods provided for a criminal act refer to the goods directly used for the criminal act or the goods used for the act closely related to the criminal act, and the goods intended to be provided for the criminal act refer to the goods that were prepared to be used for the criminal

As to the instant case, the lower court determined that two telephone calls (No. 1 and No. 2) seized from the Defendant by Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office 2015No. 1070 constituted objects (Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act) provided or intended to provide for criminal acts, and sentenced the forfeiture thereof.

However, even after examining all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is insufficient to recognize that each of the above telephone calls constitutes an article provided or intended to be provided for the instant crime, and it is difficult to deem otherwise to constitute other confiscation requirements.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since each of the above telephone calls was confiscated by the defendant.

The defendant's above assertion is with merit.

3. Conclusion.