The judgment below

We reverse the part concerning collection among the penalty surcharges.

3,603,00 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The judgment of the court below.

1. The reasoning for appeal (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the reasoning of the Defendant’s appeal ex officio, if all or part of the narcotics were confiscated from the owner or the last possessor of the said goods, the equivalent amount of the confiscated narcotics cannot be collected as a penalty, since it is the same as the confiscation in substance with respect to the relation with other persons. The value of the confiscated narcotics cannot be collected as a penalty. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, in the case of 17.1g of philopon (17.1g of philopon (130,000 won) delivered to G as stated in the judgment of the lower court, it can be known that the fact that the Defendant was confiscated from G cannot be collected as a penalty from the Defendant. Thus, the lower court collected as a penalty, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact about the calculation of the amount of penalty and thereby adversely affecting the judgment, and thus, the part concerning the collection of penalty among the judgment below cannot be maintained.

B. In full view of all the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sex behavior, motive, frequency of the crime, method of the crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment is too unreasonable, considering the following circumstances: (a) the confession of the crime of appeal as to the reason for appeal, the fact that there is a strong degree of punishment for the same crime; (b) the fact that the person was punished several times for the same crime; (c) the fact that the person committed a repeated crime of the same kind of crime; (d) the receipt, delivery, sale, medication, holding, smoking and smoking of marijuana; and (e) the preparation in collusion with accomplices for the purpose of smuggling import of phiphonephonephones; and (e) the fact that the volume of phiphones and marijuana handled is not significant.

3. In conclusion, the part concerning the collection of additional charges among the judgment below is reversed ex officio as seen earlier. Thus, Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies.