The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Although an appeal was filed against the judgment of the court of first instance, the main sentence is relevant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendant (one year of imprisonment, confiscation and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Where any seized article does not exist at the time a judgment of ex officio is rendered, or seized article is already destroyed pursuant to Articles 130 (2) and (3) and 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court shall not pronounce the confiscation of such article;

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to the forfeiture of 0.82g (Evidence 1) presumed to be the Defendant’s mother’s plastic bags (Evidence 5-6 pages) seized from I (Evidence 5-6 pages). However, according to the records of the lower judgment, prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment, the lower court recognized the fact that the Defendant was fully consumed and discarded at the examination by the Seoul Investigative Research and Research Institute prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment, and thus, discarded (Evidence 16). In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the confiscation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed.

3. If so, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by this court is as follows: 1. Prosecution investigation report (Calculation of additional collection charges) (excluding addition) is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act applies.