The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, confiscation, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) In full view of the fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the acquittal portion against Defendant B, based on information and evidence, the police officer attempted to obtain an arrest warrant against Defendant B, but did not have any personal information specified, and attempted to arrest Defendant B, who was at the scene of the arrest warrant, and attempted to urgently arrest Defendant B, who was at the scene of the arrest of the Defendant A, and searched the body with the consent of Defendant B, and received voluntary submission after discovering marijuana, and based on this, arrested Defendant B in the act of committing the crime, the above search and the arrest of Defendant B is lawful.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the above search and the arrest of the flagrant offender was illegal is erroneous.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., does not aim at deprivation of benefits from a criminal act, but rather is a disposition of punitive nature. Thus, even if there was no benefit from the criminal act, the court shall order the collection of the equivalent value. If there are several persons who committed the crime with regard to the scope of the equivalent value, the court shall order the collection of the equivalent value to each person within the scope he handled (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5158, Dec. 28, 2001). In addition, where a person sells another person with a mental medicine, the equivalent value received as a consideration for sale shall be confiscated as a profit from the criminal act under Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act, and if confiscation is impossible, the equivalent value shall be collected (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5158, Aug. 28, 2010).