The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The Financial Supervisory Service shall set forth in subparagraph 1 of seized evidence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As a matter of course, subparagraph 1 of Article 1 of the misunderstanding of the legal principle is an article that was produced or provided by a crime, and does not belong to the ownership of a person other than the criminal, such article shall not be confiscated.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor and two years of suspended execution, etc.) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Since the confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, which determines the prosecutor's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, is discretionary, the issue of whether to confiscate even an article that meets the requirements for the confiscation is left to 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, the following should be taken into account: (a) the degree and scope used in the commission of the crime and the importance of the crime; (b) the role and degree of responsibility of the owner of the goods in the commission of the crime; (c) the motive of the commission of the crime; (d) the motive of the commission of the crime; (e) profits from the crime; (e) the separate possibility of separating the part related to the commission of the crime from the goods; (e) the substantial value of the goods; (e) the relationship and balance with the crime; (e) whether the goods are not confiscated; (e) whether the goods are not confiscated to the offender; and

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do11586 Decided May 23, 2013) According to the records, the false Financial Supervisory Service (No. 1) which is a seized article of this case is an article produced by the crime of forging official documents as indicated in the judgment below, and a part of the article was used for the crime of forging official documents as indicated in the judgment below, and seized from the Defendant. In the same case, if the document in the name of the Chairperson of the Financial Supervisory Service was seized, it would normally be confiscated, and it is essential for the execution of the instant fraudulent act.