The judgment below

The part of the forfeiture shall be reversed.

Seized Nos. 1, 8, 9, 11 and 12 shall be confiscated.

. The defendant-appellant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) 2 and 10 of the misunderstandings of legal principles are objects unrelated to the instant crime, and thus, they are not subject to confiscation.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant appears to have used Samsung No. 3 mobile phones (Evidence No. 2) already used at the time of contact with the first accomplice, and the aforementioned mobile phone was used as a means of committing the instant crime.

There is room to view.

However, the confiscation under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act mainly aims at preventing the crime by discretionary means. Considering the nature of the crime in this case, the nationality of the defendant, the relationship between the defendant and his accomplice, etc., the effect of preventing the recidivism that can be obtained compared to the disadvantage suffered by the defendant due to the confiscation of mobile phones does not seem to be significant. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize the need to confiscate the aforementioned mobile phone.

Next, the inside warning (No. 10) was worn by the Defendant at the time of committing the instant crime. Such circumstance alone is difficult to deem that the inside warning was or intended to be provided for the instant criminal act, and it is difficult to recognize the necessity of confiscation in light of the means and character of the instant criminal act.

Therefore, although the seizure Nos. 2 and 10 shall not be subject to confiscation, the judgment of the court below which confiscated it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles

B. Determination 1 on the unjust assertion of sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty.