The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that this judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, and additional collection) of the lower court is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable;

2. Ex officio determination

A. Confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is not aimed at depriving a person of benefits from a criminal act, but rather a disposition of a punitive nature, so there was no benefit from the criminal act.

Even if the court orders the collection of the equivalent value, the court shall order the collection of the equivalent value, and as to the scope of the collection, it shall order the full amount of the equivalent value of the narcotics within the scope dealt with by the defendant on the basis of the defendant, a series of acts by the defendant who handles the same narcotics constitutes separate crimes, and it does not require separate collection for each act

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Do3397 delivered on March 14, 1997, and Supreme Court Decision 2000Do546 delivered on September 8, 200, etc.) (b).

The lower court collected, from the Defendant, 45,000 won (=3,000 won x 15 times) by adding the prices of marijuana (4g) that the Defendant smoked between November 1, 2013 and February 20, 2014, to the prices of eight-yearly marijuana (4g) possessed by the Defendant for the purpose of smoking from November 201, 201 to early patrolmen.

However, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts that the defendant smoked seven times during the period from November 11, 2013 to February 20, 2014, part of marijuana (4g) among eight minutes previously possessed by the defendant, and the defendant stated that the defendant smoked marijuana held from November 201 to November 2013 as stated in the judgment of the court below (Investigation Records 814, 826, 828 pages), including the portion directly provided to the defendant's smoking (Investigation Records 814, 826, 828 pages), and the prosecutor charged the defendant with specifying the amount of marijuana possessed by the defendant, as 4gg, including the portion of marijuana directly provided to the defendant's smoking (Investigation Record 3:922-924 pages). Unless there are any circumstances to deem otherwise with the smoking that the defendant smoked and the defendant possessed it.