beta
Text
The judgment below
We reverse the part concerning collection among the penalty surcharges.
18,541,500 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.
Defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Oct. 13, 2014 and Oct. 14, 2014 (hereinafter “copon”) is a part of a copon purchased on Oct. 13, 2014, and since the copon sold or administered on Oct. 29, 2014 is part of a copon purchased on the same day, it should not be additionally collected on the copon.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that ordered the collection of additional charges on the philophones, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 19,971,50) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) Determination on the portion of collection (1) The collection under the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. does not aim at depriving the benefit of a criminal act, but rather at a disposal of the punitive nature, it is sufficient to issue an order to collect the total amount of drug values within the scope dealt with by the defendant based on his/her basis. As such, a series of acts by the defendant who handled the same drug constitutes a separate crime, and thus, it does not require separate collection for each act.
(2) According to the records, the prosecutor revoked the prosecution on the facts charged that “the defendant had approximately 1.9 grams on October 29, 2014,” and the prosecutor revoked the prosecution on the second trial of the court below on the date on which the second trial of the court below was held on the same day.” (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do397, Mar. 14, 1997; 2000Do546, Sept. 8, 2000).
Thus, although the court below did not order the collection of additional charge with respect to philophones related to the part of which the indictment was revoked as above, the court below erred in ordering the collection of additional charge including philophones.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below concerning collection.