The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant’s value of the penphones itself (1.4g market price of KRW 420,000) sold, in addition to the proceeds from the crime (sale price) that the Defendant acquired by selling the penphones of this case, should be collected separately from the Defendant pursuant to the proviso to Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act.

Nevertheless, the court below omitted the imposition of additional collection on the above penphone value itself. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and eight months of imprisonment) is an unreasonable one.

2. Determination

A. Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. provides that “temporary narcotics, facilities, equipment, or means of transport provided for any crime prescribed by this Act, and profits therefrom shall be confiscated: Provided, That where confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is not for the purpose of depriving profits from a criminal act, but for the purpose of disposing of profits from a criminal act, the equivalent value shall be additionally collected even if there is no profits from the criminal act. However, the scope of such additional collection is within the scope he handles based on the defendant, and it does not constitute a separate crime, and it does not mean that the Defendant’s series of acts handling the same narcotics constitutes separate crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do15127, Jan. 26, 2012). In addition, in cases where narcotics are sold to any other person, the equivalent value shall be confiscated as a price for sale, and if it is impossible to confiscate profits from a criminal act as prescribed in Article 67 of the above Act.