마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding the legal principles (additional collection) and the profits actually acquired by the Defendant in relation to each of the crimes of this case (the receipt, purchase, medication) are merely equivalent to the amount equivalent to 0.1g of opon administered by C in return for the heart, but the lower court ordered the additional collection of KRW 7,829,000, which is equivalent to the total value of opon administered by C in return for the crime of this case, erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the amount of additional collection, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, additional collection) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. with Respect to the argument of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the amount of additional collection by the defendant is not aimed at depriving the profits from a criminal act, but rather is a disposition of punitive nature. Thus, even if there was no profit from the criminal act, the court shall order the additional collection of the value. If there are several persons who committed the crime with respect to the scope of additional collection, the court shall order each person to collect the total amount of pharmaceutical value within the scope he handled (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7251 Decided August 26, 2010). In light of the above legal principles, the court shall order the additional collection of the value of the medicine within the scope he handled (Supreme Court Decision 201Do7251 Decided August 26, 201), 7,829,00 won [the sum of each of the following amounts: 329,000 won [the sum of 0,000 won (the retail price per piece) 1g) x x 7000.70 gram gram gram x 70000 gram gram me.
Therefore, the court below that collected the same amount is just and acceptable, and there is a misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged by the defendant.