2. Confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. for ex officio determination is not aimed at deprivation of benefits from a criminal act, but rather a disposition of a punitive nature, so there is no benefit from such criminal act;

The court shall order the additional collection of the value, and if there are many persons who have committed a crime with regard to the scope of the additional collection, the court shall order each person to collect the total amount of the drug value within the scope he/she handles.

(2) As to the amount of narcotics to be collected in accordance with the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., the amount of narcotics to be collected in accordance with the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. shall be deemed to be the amount equivalent to the profit that an offender would have lost if he/she had been sentenced to confiscation when it is impossible to confiscate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do514, Dec. 28, 2001). In addition, the amount of narcotics to be collected in accordance with the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. shall be deemed to be the amount equivalent to the profit that he/she had lost if he/she had been sentenced to confiscation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do352, May 28, 1991). As such, the amount of narcotics to be collected in accordance with the ordinary transaction price in the market can only be based on the actual transaction price (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 83Do1927, Sept. 13, 1983).

The lower court, as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, held that the Defendant 3,40,00 won (= KRW 4,500,000 KRW 400,00 KRW 4,500 KRW 4,000 KRW 400,00 KRW 400,00 KRW 50,000 KRW 4,00 KRW 50,000 KRW) was based on the actual purchase price of phiphones purchased over seven