마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.
703,860 won shall be collected from the defendant.
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (a year and two months of imprisonment, an additional collection of KRW 706,180) is too unreasonable.
2. Prior to examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the health class and the additional collection are dispositions in lieu of confiscation, so the subject matter must meet the requirements for confiscation, and in order to sentence confiscation, each seizure record and each appraisal report by the National Science Investigation Agency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6982, Jan. 28, 2010). According to the investigation agency’s written appraisal by the I and the defendant, each of the following items was seized upon voluntary submission of 0.17g and 0.24g, each of the green species presumed to be marijuana from the defendant, and the total 0.41g of the above green species were consumed in the appraisal procedure for component analysis. As a result, the fact that the main substance of marijuana was detected in the appraisal procedure, as a result of the appraisal, can be acknowledged that the whole quantity of the materials was not consumed and may not be confiscated as well as marijuana subject to additional collection.
Nevertheless, the lower court, without considering the foregoing, ordered the collection of the total value of 1g of marijuana received from G on June 15, 2014.
Meanwhile, even if confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. is not aimed at depriving profits from criminal acts, but rather is a disposition of punitive nature, it should be ordered to collect the full amount of the value of narcotics within the scope dealt with by the defendant based on his/her standard. The defendant's series of actions that handle the same narcotics constitutes separate crimes and thus, it is not necessary to collect the equivalent value separately for each act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do397, Mar. 14, 1997). In other words, part of marijuana 1g received from G on June 15, 2014, that is, the defendant's delivery to I and delivery to 0.17g of marijuana cannot be ordered to collect the equivalent value.
Therefore, this is applicable.