The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The seizure of articles 3 through 5 shall be confiscated.

1. The lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) against the accused against the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining ex officio on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant and his defense counsel’s above assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower court calculated a surcharge of 0.03g through 0.1g on a one-time basis in the case of Articles 8 through 11 of the facts charged in the instant case, and calculated a surcharge of 0.03g through 0.1g on a two-time basis, and calculated a surcharge of 00,000 won by multiplying the market price for one-time medication by 100,000 won (the total amount of KRW 100,000 won under paragraph (8) of the facts charged 100,000 (two-time medication x 100,000 won). In addition, in the case of paragraphs 14 through 16 of the instant facts charged, the lower court calculated a surcharge of 0.24g or 0.1g on a one-time basis, and calculated a total of KRW 708g or 200g on a one-time retail volume (10008g).

(3) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the imposition of additional collection charges on the part of the defendant, since each of the above facts charged is a kind of act because all of the above facts charged were delivered without compensation and the form of act is identical, it is reasonable to calculate the additional collection charges by calculating the total quantity of the part delivered by the defendant and multiplying the retail price per 1g by the retail price per unit. In addition, since all of the crime places of the above facts charged are Busan, it is necessary to apply 70,000 won, which is the retail price per 1g of the Busan area in the monthly trend of narcotics (Evidence No. 118 pages

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there exists a ground for ex officio reversal, and the judgment below is reversed in accordance with the above provision of Article 364(2) and the defendant and his defense counsel

Criminal facts

The summary of this and the facts charged by the court and the summary of the evidence are as follows.