The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal in order to prevent the secondary damage as the video recorded by the seized cell phone is reproduced and disseminated after the Defendant offered the instant crime, but it is necessary to confiscate it. However, the lower court erred by omitting the sentence of forfeiture on the relevant cell phone.

2. As the confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act is discretionary, the issue of whether to confiscate even an article that meets the requirements for the confiscation is left at the court’s discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do515, Sept. 4, 2002). Considering all the circumstances, including the fact that it is possible to remove and restore a video file from a seized mobile phone, and that it is not easy to recover it, and that the Defendant is an initial offender who has no record of committing any crime, and that there is a low possibility of again preventing the same crime, the failure of the court below to sentence confiscation on the seized mobile phone does not violate the principle of proportionality as a result of exercising discretionary power, and it does not appear that the determination of confiscation is unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.