마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (such as imprisonment for eight months, suspension of execution for two years, additional collection for two years, etc.) imposed by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Prior to the prosecutor’s judgment on the grounds of appeal, we examine ex officio the amount additionally collected against the defendant.
According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant was issued one for a single-use injection machine with a quantity of 2 square meters for injection devices from D around September 2013, and administered it directly, and the rest of the half of the barphone was injected to E. In October 2013, the defendant was found to have been issued one for a single-use injection machine with a amount of 1 square meters for the eye for injection devices from D during the period of time in September 2013, and then injected it to E, and the market price of the 10,000 won for a single-use medication of the phone.
However, confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is not aimed at deprivation of profits from criminal acts, but rather a disposition of punitive nature, so there was no profit from such crime.
Even if the court orders the collection of the equivalent value, and if there are many persons who have committed the crime with respect to the scope of the collection, the court shall order the respective persons to collect the equivalent value of the narcotics within the scope they handled (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do3250, Mar. 23, 1993). However, with respect to the scope of the collection, it is necessary to issue an order to collect the equivalent value of the narcotics within the scope they handled based on the defendant, a series of acts by the defendant who handled the same narcotics constitute separate crimes, and it does not require separate collection for each act.
(See Supreme Court Decision 96Do3397 delivered on March 14, 1997). In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant sculponsed in a quantity that can be administered three times in total from D.