The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment for two years and six months, the suspension of execution for four years, the probation, the community service order of 120 hours and the order to attend the pharmacologic treatment course of 40 hours) of the lower court is too unfunied and unreasonable;

2. The Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. provides that narcotics, temporary narcotics, facilities, equipment, or means of transport provided for a crime as prescribed by the same Act, and the profits therefrom shall be confiscated ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

According to the records, six copies (No. 2) seized by the Defendant were contained in the instant mail bags (No. 3) concealed by the instant mail bags (hereinafter “written phone”). It is merely a document stating the contact number of the persons who purchase the instant item, and thus cannot be deemed a facility, equipment, or means of transport provided for the instant mail import crime. Ten copies (No. 5) seized by the Defendant from the Defendant for one-time injection (No. 5) are objects prepared for administration when the Defendant imported and acquired the instant part of the phone, so it cannot be deemed a facility, equipment, or means of transport provided for the instant crime in violation of the Narcotics Control Act (Act No. 5) due to the import of the instant part of the phone.

Therefore, the six copies (No. 2) and ten copies (No. 5) that were seized cannot be subject to confiscation pursuant to Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. If so, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

Criminal facts recognized by the court as well as the summary of the evidence.