마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The amount to be collected from the Defendant (legal scenarios) must be eight million won in the purchase price actually received by the Defendant after selling phiphones.
B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the prosecutor (unfair sentencing), the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (an additional collection of KRW 40 hours of imprisonment for one year and six months, three years of suspended sentence, probation, and pharmacologic treatment) is too unfluent and unfair.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. The confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., to determine the Defendant’s assertion, is not aimed at deprivation of benefits from criminal conduct, but rather a disposition of punitive nature, so there was no benefit from such crime.
The court shall order an additional collection of the value, and if there are many persons who have committed the crime with regard to the scope of the additional collection, the court shall order each person to collect the full amount of the drug value within the scope he handled, and in addition, in the case of selling psychotropic drugs to others, the price, etc. received in return for the sale shall be confiscated as profits from criminal acts provided for in Article 67 of the same Act, and if it is impossible to confiscate them,
The value here means the normal transaction value in the market.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5158 delivered on December 28, 2001, and 83Do1927 delivered on September 13, 1983, etc.). The court below found, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, “The fact that the Defendant sold the rophone by the Defendant was 15.2g in total, and the ordinary transaction price of the rophone was 830,000 won per 1g,” and ordered the Defendant to additionally collect 12,616,000 won calculated on the basis thereof (=15.2g x 830,000 won). The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable in light of the above legal principles. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion of legal principles is without merit.
B. Determination of the Prosecutor’s assertion