The collection portion against the defendant shall be reversed.

60,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) shall be too unreasonable.

Since additional collection under the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is a disposition with a punitive nature, it is an order for full collection of the value within the scope of handling the same person as well as the owner or the last holder of the narcotics, but if the whole or part of the narcotics were confiscated from the owner or the last holder of the narcotics, it is the same as the forfeiture in substance in relation to other persons, and thus, the part of the value of the confiscated narcotics cannot be collected.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2819, Jun. 11, 2009). According to the evidence and records duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was 3-B of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below.

As described in the paragraph, approximately 6.94g (No. 2 seized evidence 6.94g (No. 2) was seized betweenO and Co-defendant A (hereinafter referred to as "co-defendant") of the lower court (hereinafter referred to as "co-defendant") but it appears that 0.3gs were consumed by appraisal.

(Evidence Records 377-378 pages). A arranged to sell and purchase a philophone, and A was seized about 6.94 g of the said philophone (Evidence Records 199, 231, 509-510 pages), and the lower court sentenced A to forfeiture of approximately 6.94 g of the said philophone on May 21, 2015, and the said judgment against A is recognized as final and conclusive on May 29, 2015.

In light of the relevant legal principles as seen earlier, according to the foregoing facts of recognition, approximately 6.94g of the above Handphone, confiscated by A, is the same as the actual confiscation in relation with the Defendant. Therefore, its value cannot be collected as additional collection. Nevertheless, the court below erred in calculating additional collection against the Defendant, including approximately 6.94g of the above Handphone.

In conclusion, the relevant legal principles as seen earlier are examined.