The judgment below

Of the above, the part concerning the collection by Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A 2,000,000 won.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (defendant F: imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, and imprisonment of 1 year and 8 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination ex officio. 1) Since confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act does not aim at deprivation of profits from criminal acts, it is not a disposition of punitive nature. Thus, even if there was no profit from the crime, the court shall order the collection of the value. However, as to the scope of the collection, it is necessary to issue an order to collect the value of the narcotics within the scope of the defendant's handling the same narcotics, etc., and it is not necessary to separately collect the value for each act because a series of acts by the defendant who handled the same narcotics constitutes separate crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do546, Sept. 8, 200). Since it is the same as the confiscation of narcotics, etc. from the owner or the final possessor of the phone, the value of the confiscated narcotics, etc. can not be collected separately from the above appraisal and inspection agency without consideration, in light of the legal principles as seen above, since the above confiscation of narcotics, etc. from the victim or the final possessor of the phone constitutes a confiscation of narcotics, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do1616, Jun. 28, 2019, 2019).).