The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) Improper sentencing of the Defendant (which has both reflectivity, the same kind of criminal record, depression and disorder in the division of labor union);

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the legal principles (Omission of the pronouncement of penalty) 1) misunderstanding the law on the control of narcotics, etc. of this case (the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. of this case requires necessary deprivation or collection of penalty, and thus, one hundred thousand won should be collected from the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. Article 67 of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc., which provides for a crime as provided in this Act, shall be confiscated.

Provided, That where it cannot be confiscated, the value thereof shall be collected additionally.

“......”

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that did not issue an additional collection on behalf of the defendant is unfair, and the prosecutor's objection pointing this out is with merit.

B. Of the judgment of the appellate court that sentenced the scope of reversal and forfeiture or collection, where there exist grounds for reversal of only the part concerning the confiscation or collection among the judgments of the appellate court that sentenced the confiscation or collection, the Supreme Court may reverse only that part. However, where the appellate court reverses the part on the grounds that the confiscation or collection was not sentenced, it cannot be reversed by specifying only that part of the judgment of the appellate court did not exist and that part cannot be reversed (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5822, Oct. 28, 2005). Therefore, the entire guilty part of the judgment of the lower court should be reversed even in this case where the lower court did not impose an additional collection

3. The Prosecutor’s argument of misunderstanding the legal principles is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is entirely reversed, and the judgment below is reversed in its entirety and it is again decided as follows with the pleading under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor’s and the Defendant’s unfair argument of sentencing.

【Judgment to be used again】 Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court.