The judgment below

The part of confiscation and collection shall be reversed.

One copy (No. 1) of the seized cell phone, one electronic livel, and one copy.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) A deposit claim (230,686 won in the balance of the T account in the name of the Defendant against K Bank Co., Ltd.) preserved for forfeiture omitted on the preserved deposit claim (hereinafter “instant deposit claim”).

(2) Although the lower court should be confiscated as criminal proceeds, the lower court omitted the confiscation thereof. (2) The lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the prosecutor’s assertion of omission of confiscation (including ex officio determination as to collection), the Gwangju District Court rendered a decision on the preservation for confiscation of the deposit claim of this case on September 10, 2019 (Seoul District Court 2019 early July 789). Since the above deposit claim is recognized as profits earned by the defendant from marijuana trade as stated in the judgment of the court below, it shall be confiscated in accordance with the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act. Since the court below erred by omitting forfeiture of the deposit claim of this case, the prosecutor’s assertion pointing this out has merit.2) Furthermore, the part of the judgment below as to additional collection is examined ex officio.

As seen above, the confiscation order of the deposit claim of this case which was preserved for forfeiture is ordered, but the portion of the judgment below which calculated the additional collection charge cannot be maintained as it is without considering it.

(B) The amount of the deposit claim of this case shall be deducted from the additional collection charge calculated by the original court.

Compared to the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and where the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the prosecutor as sentencing factors in this court are already discovered in the hearing process of the lower court, or the lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant.