The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is improper to confiscate a knife (No. 1) that is a dangerous object used to commit the instant crime as to confiscation.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the seizure protocol, the knife, which is a dangerous object used for the instant crime as to the assertion regarding confiscation, is that the owner becomes the victim (in view of the fact that the defendant and the victim are married, it is highly probable that the co-ownership of the defendant and the victim may be presumed in accordance with Article 830(2) of the Civil Act), and it is not subject to confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act.

Even if the confiscation is subject to the above provision, since the confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act is arbitrary, 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 the various circumstances such as the daily use of the seized knife and the degree of relation to the instant crime, the failure of the court below to sentence the seized knife as a result of the exercise of discretionary authority cannot be deemed as going against the principle of proportionality, and it is difficult to view that the determination of the seized knife is unfair.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the instant crime is an unfavorable factor for sentencing, such as: (a) the Defendant took a knife knife, which is a dangerous object, and threatened the victim; and (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he had the record of providing community service by domestic violence; and (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime.

However, the fact that the defendant is recognized and against his own crime, the fact that the defendant has reached the first instance and reached the first instance agreement with the victim, and the age, character, character, environment of the defendant.