마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)등
The judgment below
We reverse the part concerning collection among the penalty surcharges.
636,00 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.
The above additional collection charge.
1. The gist of the prosecutor's appeal is that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to collection, although the defendant provided 630,000 won of 630,000 won of bitco to the crime of attempted marijuana trade in this case.
2. Determination
(a) Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act shall be confiscated for narcotics and temporary narcotics, facilities, equipment, funds or means of transport provided for any crime prescribed in this Act, and proceeds therefrom;
Provided, That where it cannot be confiscated, the value thereof shall be collected additionally.
“The price specified in the actual condition that it may be delivered to the other party to the sales contract for the attempts to trade marijuana shall be confiscated as the fund provided for the attempted trade, and if confiscation is not possible, an amount equivalent to the price shall be collected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do508, May 12, 1998). (b) In light of these provisions and legal principles, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the public health unit, the court below, and the court below, and the court below, duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant transferred the 6.3 grams of marijuana from the person under his name to the e-mail, as described in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, to the 3g of marijuana from the seller under his name, on two occasions at the e-mail address of the above seller.
B. In light of the language, structure, etc. of the foregoing provision, the quantity and purchase value of the marijuana for which the Defendant wishes to purchase are specified, and at the time, the bit coaches transferred by the Defendant either electronically indicating the economic value in digital format and allowing transfer, storage and transactions (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do3619, May 30, 2018). In light of the character and economic value of the bitcoin, as seen above, the bitco remitter transferred by the Defendant specified the seller for the purchase of marijuana of approximately three grams and the attempts to trade the said marijuana.