The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (two years of probation, two years of probation, observation of protection and 80 hours of attendance order for mental psychology in October) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) It is unreasonable that the lower court did not confiscate excessive one percent used for the instant crime.

2) The lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the prosecutor’s assertion of omission in confiscation

A. Relevant legal principles 1) As confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act is arbitrary, the issue of whether to confiscate an article subject to confiscation (hereinafter referred to as "article") is subject to confiscation is at the discretion of the competent court. However, it is restricted by the principle of proportionality applicable to the general criminal (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8174, Apr. 24, 2008). In order to determine whether confiscation violates the principle of proportionality, the extent and scope used in the crime, the importance and degree of responsibility of the owner of the article, the role and degree of responsibility in the crime, the degree of infringement of legal interests caused by the crime, motive for the crime, profit, separateness and balance of the part related to the crime, the substantial value of the article is essential to the offender, whether the article is not subject to confiscation, and if the offender does not possess the article in the same manner and does not possess it again (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8136, Apr. 24, 2008).