The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Seized evidence 1 to 5 shall be confiscated.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (20 million won, additional collection 2,165,00 won, additional collection 2,165,000 won) that the court below rendered by the defendant is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, four disposable injection equipment containing health belts and four disposable injection equipment containing seized phiphones (Evidence Nos. 1 through 4) are the narcotics and equipment provided by the Defendant to the instant crime, which constitute the objects of requisite deprivation as prescribed by the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act (the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to necessary deprivation of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the necessary legal principles as to the determination of white color of No. 1, which is the remainder other than the amount consumed for appraisal among the above seized articles, and the end of 0.56g, 0.38g, 0.34g, 0. 0g, 0. 4g, 0. 4g and 1 disposable injection equipment among the items No. 4 of evidence No. 4 among each of the above seized articles.

On the other hand, six injections (No. 5) per time are objects of voluntary confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, which are objects of criminal law, for which the defendant tried to provide for criminal acts.

As confiscation under Article 48 of the Criminal Act is a voluntary confiscation, the court may choose not to confiscate it at its discretion. However, narcotics-related crimes cause a personal and social harm. Since the above seized objects are the direct means of the medication of narcotics, it is necessary to prevent recidivism by forfeiture. In full view of the general fact that it is necessary to confiscate an article to be provided to a criminal act against cases similar to this case, the court below's failure to issue an order of confiscation of the above seized object is erroneous in the misapprehension of the discretionary power over discretionary confiscation under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is examined above.