The judgment below

We reverse the part concerning collection among the penalty surcharges.

64,000 won, Defendant 2, together with the Defendants.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the lower court’s punishment (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, probation, 40 hours of taking a course in pharmacologic treatment, confiscation, and collection) against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, etc. for Ex Officio Determination of Additional Collection is not aimed at depriving the benefits from criminal acts, but rather is a disposition of the punitive nature, so the benefits from such crime has not been acquired;

The court shall order the additional collection of the value, and if there are many persons who have committed a crime with regard to the scope of the additional collection, the court shall order each person to collect the total amount of the drug value within the scope he/she handles.

(see, 2010Do7251, Aug. 26, 2010). As such, “the meaning of the full amount of the additional collection” in the additional collection of all the values within the scope of handling the same as the owners or final holders of narcotics, etc., from among those who handle the same narcotics, as well as those who handle the same narcotics, means “the meaning of the full amount of the additional collection” is that, when some of the Defendants, who are accomplices, have paid the full amount of the additional collection, the additional collection of all the accomplices is exempted, but if they have not

(Non-Appellant Joint and Several Liability, Supreme Court Decision 81Do74 Decided March 24, 1981, etc.). However, if the whole or part of the narcotics, etc. were confiscated from the owner or the last holder, then the same applies to the relationship with other handlers, and thus, the part of the value of the confiscated narcotics, etc. cannot be collected as a penalty.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2819, Jun. 11, 2009). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendants conspired to purchase at least 2,000,000 5 g of Matampons (one-name Handphone; hereinafter “philon”) around March 27, 2018 and free of charge a large amount of marijuana.