We reverse the part concerning collection among the penalty surcharges.

1,790,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The judgment of the court below.

A. Fact-finding misunderstanding (as to the crime of Article 2017 Highest 1567 (1) of the lower judgment’s judgment), the Defendant did not sell Mestop (one name “philopon”; hereinafter “philopon”) to E, but purchased the part of E from E upon request by E, and jointly purchased the part of the Defendant’s philopon from E, and put the corresponding Mestopopon to E.

B. In light of the fact that: (a) the Defendant purchased a phiphone for the purpose of selling sentencing, not a phiphone for the purpose of purchasing a phiphone for simple medication; (b) the Defendant cooperateed in the investigation by submitting a phiphone and a one-time injection device at the time when the Defendant was arrested in the instant case; and (c) the Defendant’s act was divided into the instant crime, and the Defendant reflects the fact that the instant case was committed, and even during the number of reduction, etc., the sentence (one year and six months, etc.) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the additional collection of the defendant ex officio (the additional collection of the defendant).

The additional collection of narcotics under the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is a disposition with punitive nature, and thus, it is ordered to collect a total amount of additional collection for those who handle the same narcotics as well as their owners or final holders within the scope of their handling. However, if the whole or part of the narcotics were confiscated from their owners or final holders, 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 investigated by the court below, the defendant purchased approximately KRW 3g 1,50,000 from I on a cellphone as stated in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts of the 2601 case.