The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. First, we examine the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

A. Article 67 of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (amended by Act No. 10786, Jun. 7, 2011) that applies to the instant case provides that “narcotics, facilities, equipment, funds, or means of transport provided for a crime prescribed in this Act, and profits therefrom shall be confiscated: Provided, That if such confiscation is impossible, an amount equivalent thereto shall be collected.” Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act provides that “narcotics, temporary narcotics, etc., facilities, equipment, funds, or means of transport provided for a crime prescribed in this Act, and profits therefrom shall be confiscated: Provided, That if such confiscation is impossible, an amount equivalent thereto shall be collected.” This is the so-called essential confiscation or additional collection clause, and the court that meets the requirements shall order the confiscation or additional collection without fail.

(2) The court of final appeal may reverse the part of the judgment of the appellate court on November 20, 2008 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Do5596, Nov. 20, 2008). In cases where there are grounds for reversal only concerning the part of confiscation or additional collection among the judgment of the appellate court that rendered the main sentence and confiscation or additional collection, the part of the judgment of the appellate court may be reversed. However, in cases where the appellate court reverses the portion of confiscation or additional collection on the grounds that the court

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5822 Decided October 28, 2005, etc.). B.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and the record, the first instance court sentenced the Defendant two years of imprisonment with prison labor, and sentenced the Defendant to three for a disposable injection devices (Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 10), three for a disposable injection devices (Evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5), four for a seized mobile phone (Evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9), three for a seized mobile phone Nos. 3.54g for a seized mobile phone (Evidence No. 11), and additionally collected KRW 60,000 from the Defendant.