The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.

No. 1, 3, 5 through 8, 10 of seized evidence.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the punishment of 1 year, 10 months, 1 to 10 months, 447,00 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

(a) The court below found the following facts constituting the crime: ① Handphones and marijuana delivery (not less than 0.03 g of philophones delivered to D; approximately 0.15 g of clophones delivered to G; and approximately 0.49 g of clophones and marijuana delivery; ② c. 0.03 g of philophones ( approximately 0.05 g of clograms); ④ c. 4 of philophones and marijuana possession [3 of philophones (Evidence 1.93 g of philophones), 00 g of clograms (No. 1,2 and 3 of philophones), 100 g of clograms with 0.2 mlophones (No. 4); and

B. In a case where the seized article does not exist at the time a judgment was rendered, or where the seized article has already been destroyed pursuant to Articles 130(2), 130(3) and 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court may not render a sentence to confiscate the article (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4183, Sept. 13, 2012). Furthermore, in a case where the collection of narcotics under the Narcotics Control Act was fully or partially confiscated from the owner or the last holder, the same applies to the forfeiture of the narcotics in relation to other persons, and thus, the value of the confiscated narcotics cannot be collected from other persons (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do4927, Jun. 9, 2016).

First, we examine confiscation.

According to the investigation records (163 to 165 pages), evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 9 are consumed for the appraisal at the investigation stage and are not present at the time the judgment of the court below is pronounced (Article 3 is also consumed for the evidence of seizure).