The judgment below

We reverse the part concerning collection among the penalty surcharges.

90,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

(b) the defendant;

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the additional collection of the defendant ex officio (the additional collection of the defendant).

According to the provisions of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act, narcotics and proceeds therefrom provided for a crime under this Act shall be confiscated, and if they cannot be confiscated, the equivalent value thereof shall be collected. Here, the value of narcotics shall refer to the ordinary transaction price in the market, and if the ordinary transaction price is not formed, it shall be based on the actual transaction price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do1927, Sept. 13, 1983). Confiscation and additional collection under Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act are not for the purpose of depriving profits from criminal acts, but for punitive nature. Thus, even if there were not acquired profits from such crime, the court shall issue an additional collection of the equivalent value, and if there are many persons who have committed a crime with regard to the scope of their additional collection, the court shall issue an additional collection of the equivalent value to 20g of narcotics, etc., within the scope of their handling, and it shall not issue an additional collection of the equivalent value of 10g and 28g of narcotics, etc., within the previous 200g.