The conviction part of the judgment of the court below among the defendant's case and the case for attachment order shall be reversed respectively.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. One mobile phone (Evidence No. 1) and Scar’s mobile phone (Evidence No. 2) that was confiscated by misapprehending the legal principles on prosecutor’s (i.e., Samsung C&T) are goods used by the Defendant for the instant crime. Thus, even if the pertinent video and photograph were deleted at present and not discovered from the above seized articles, they are subject to confiscation.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below omitted the sentence of forfeiture of the above seized articles, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles on forfeiture, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (the prosecutor, as seen above, did not err in sentencing on the grounds of appeal, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the circumstances where the confiscation was omitted as one of the grounds for appeal, but it shall be interpreted as a misapprehension of the legal principles in light of the contents of the allegation).

Article 22(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the court below’s dismissal of the request for attachment order by a prosecutor is unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The guilty part of the defendant's case and the part regarding the case for attachment order

A. One mobile phone (Evidence No. 1) and Scar’s mobile phone (Evidence No. 2) that was seized on the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine are the goods owned by the Defendant, which were provided for a crime, subject to confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act.

However, since the confiscation under the above provision is arbitrary and thus, the issue of whether to confiscate an article that meets the requirements of the confiscation is left to the court's discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do515, Sept. 4, 2002, etc.). Thus, the court did not confiscate the above confiscated article that is the object of the confiscation.

The measure can not be regarded as illegal immediately.

B. A. I.D. presently, the articles seized in this case.