The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

9,120,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

. Prosecutors and defendants;

A. The sentence of the court below (the crime No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 1, No. 4, No. 6, and No. 7: Imprisonment for two years, probation, community service order 240 hours, 40 hours, 40 hours an order to attend pharmacologic treatment, 5, and No. 8 of the attached crime list No. 3 of the decision, is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal, even though the collection under the Narcotics Control Act is not aimed at depriving of profits from criminal acts, but rather a punitive disposition, it is necessary to order the full collection of drug value within the scope he handled on the basis of the defendant, and the defendant's series of acts dealing with the same drug constitute separate crimes, and it does not require separate collection for each act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do546, Sept. 8, 2000). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that Rophonephone, which was delivered to E without compensation as stated in paragraph 4 of the judgment of the court below, was part of the phone purchased from E, such as the No. 1 listed in the annexed Table of Crimes as stated in paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court below.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the collection of additional charges under the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., in addition to ordering the collection of additional charges for the total value of the penphones purchased from E (50,000 won) as shown in paragraph (4) of the judgment of the court below, as shown in paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court below.

I would like to say.

(b)with respect to the reasons for appeal;