A. The judgment of the court below which sentenced the collection of additional charges to the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle, although the defendant did not administer philophones.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc., which is part of the misapprehension of the legal principles, is not aimed at deprived of the benefits from criminal acts, but rather is a disposition of the punitive nature, the benefits from such crime was not acquired

The court shall order the additional collection of the value, and if there are many persons who have committed a crime with regard to the scope of the additional collection, the court shall order each person to collect the total amount of the drug value within the scope he/she handles.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5158 Decided December 28, 2001, etc.). The court below rendered a decision of additional collection equivalent to the value on the ground that the defendant delivered approximately 48.24 g of Meteatopian to D, among which 48.19 g was confiscated from D and confiscated, but the remaining approximately 0.05 g was impossible to confiscate due to D medication. Although the defendant did not take advantage of profits by directly administering Meteapine or providing it free of charge, the decision of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as argued by the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions when compared to the first instance court on the portion of the unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court: (a) the fact that the Defendant’s delivery is very large in quantity; and (b) the Defendant’s commission of the crime is the Meptian.