The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

9,100,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The judgment below

(2).

A. In relation to a misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant did not administer philophones around December 23, 2017, with respect to the case of misunderstanding of facts, at least 2019 Godan1047.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to sentence confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc. for the Ex officio Determination of Additional Collection, the requirements for confiscation or collection should be related to the criminal facts for which a public prosecution was instituted. Thus, the court should be deemed as not to sentence confiscation or collection for the facts not recognized in the criminal facts.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Do16170 Decided December 15, 2016 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do16170, Dec. 15, 2016). However, the lower court recognized that the Defendant administered the steam in a manner that inhales it by heating the volume of the barphone in a single name, and issued an additional collection of KRW 100,000, an amount equivalent to the market price from the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant administered the barphone once.

In light of the above legal principles, inasmuch as the lower court determined that the quantity of a philophone administered in the criminal facts of the case 2019 Godan1047 cannot be specified, the lower court cannot order the Defendant to collect additional charges on the ground that the quantity of a philophone administered cannot be specified.

Therefore, the sum to be collected from the Defendant is KRW 9,100,000, including the sum of KRW 100,000,000, and KRW 9,000,000 related to the 2019 Highest 699 incident.

Nevertheless, since the court below erred by ordering the additional collection of KRW 9,200,000 in excess of this, the part of the court below's judgment on the additional collection should be reversed.

B. The difference between the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court in accordance with the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as one of the elements of the trial-oriented principle in determining the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts.