1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

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

seizure B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In accordance with the proviso of Article 67 of the Inspection (Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.) Act, among the judgment below that did not impose an additional collection on the part of Defendant B, even though the value equivalent to 6.2 grams purchased from Defendant B and administered by Defendant B should be collected from Defendant B pursuant to the proviso of Article 67, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the additional collection, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The judgment of the court below that found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that Defendant A merely lent money to Defendant B through the introduction of Q, and Defendant A did not sell phiphones to Defendant B, was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The punishment sentenced by the court below (no more than 10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles on prosecutor's assertion of the relevant legal principles: (a) confiscation or additional collection under Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act is mainly intended to deprive the owner of the benefits from the criminal act; (b) confiscation or additional collection under the Criminal Act is necessary to confiscate the medicines provided for the criminal act; and (c) if confiscation is impossible, a punitive disposition which requires the equivalent value to be paid. Therefore, not an order for additional collection to the owner of psychotropic drugs or the final holder of the same drug, but an order for additional collection of the total amount of pharmaceutical value to a person who handled the same drug within the scope he handled (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do1920, Dec. 8, 1989); and (c) if there are many persons who committed the relevant crime, the court below should order additional collection from each person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do328, Mar. 13, 1984); and (b) the court below held that the defendant B paid KRW 2 to the defendant 36.7.6.