Whether it is possible to impose an additional collection on a accessories while imposing an additional collection on a principal offender.

It is reasonable to view that it is not possible to impose a collection of the value on a paper offender who aided and abetted the transaction separately while collecting the value of the Mestopian who traded with the principal offender in light of the legal principles of the collection of the value to deprive the criminal of illegal acquisition.

Paragraph 4 of the Addenda of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act, Paragraph 1 of Article 42 of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act

Defendant 1 and five others

Prosecutor and Defendants

Busan District Court (80 High Court Decision 931)

All appeals by the defendants 2 and 3 and by the prosecutor against the defendant, etc. are dismissed, respectively.

Of the judgment of the court below, the part on the defendant 1, 4, 5, 6, etc. shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and one year.

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be 65 days each included in the above sentence as to the defendant 1, 4, 5, 6, etc.

However, with respect to Defendant 4, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Seized Mampamins 99gs shall be confiscated from Defendant 1.

The amount of KRW 28,500,000 shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

The gist of the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the above defendant's defense counsel's appeal is that the sentencing of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable, and the main point of the grounds of appeal No. 2 of the above defendant's appeal is that the sentencing of the court below against the defendant is too excessive. The first point of the grounds of appeal against the defendant No. 4's defense counsel is that the sentencing of the court below is too inappropriate. The second point of the grounds of appeal is that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the collection, and it is erroneous in the calculation of the additional collection amount. The first point of appeal against the defendant No. 2, 5, 3, 6 is that the court below erred in the misconception of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the second point of appeal against the defendant et al. is so unfair that each of the grounds of appeal against the defendant No. 1, 2, 5, 3, and 6 is too unreasonable.

1. We examine the defendant 2, 5, 3, and 6's assertion of misunderstanding of facts. In light of the records, the evidence examined and adopted by the court below is sufficient to acknowledge each criminal facts of the above defendant, etc., and there is no other evidence to deem that the fact-finding of the court below was erroneous. Thus, the arguments are without merit.

2. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing on the defendant 2, 3, and the prosecutor's defendant, etc., taking into account all circumstances such as the age, character and conduct, intelligence, environment, motive, means, consequence, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below on the defendant, etc. is not deemed to be reasonable and unreasonable or unreasonable.

Therefore, since the appeal filed by the prosecutor against the defendant 2 and 3 and the same defendant is groundless, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3. In light of the various circumstances as to the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing on the defendant 1, 5, 6 and the defendant's respective ages, character and conduct, intelligence, environment, motive, means, results, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's sentencing against the defendant, etc. is considered to be too inappropriate. Thus, the appeal by the defendant, etc. is reasonable in this respect, and each appeal by the prosecutor against the defendant, etc. against the defendant, etc. is groundless. Thus, the court below's judgment against the defendant, etc. cannot be reversed.

Then, according to the reasoning of appeal by Defendant 4, the court below's judgment and records, as to the so-called, aiding and abetting Defendant 1's purchase and sale of the Mesa Pacos, the court below, however, it is reasonable to view that the collection cannot be imposed on Defendant 4, who is only a separate principal offender, while collecting the value of the Mesacos in transactions with the above defendant as a principal offender, it is reasonable in light of the principle of additional collection that it would deprive him of illegal acquisition from the criminal. Therefore, the court below's judgment against the above defendant is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles of additional collection, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and without any need to determine the remaining grounds for appeal by the above defendant, the court below against the above defendant shall not be reversed in this respect

Therefore, pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, parts of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant 1, 4, 5, and 6 shall be reversed, and the judgment shall be rendered again after pleadings.

The criminal facts and evidence relations of the same defendant, etc. recognized as a party member are the same as those of the court below, and they are quoted as they are.

Since Article 42(1)1 and Article 4(1)1 of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act, among those indicated in the judgment of the court below, Article 1-3(1)1 and Article 3(1)6 of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act, the so-called 1-3(1)4 of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act, among those listed in the judgment of the court below, shall be included in the 6-year imprisonment with prison labor for each of the above 1-3(1)1, Article 38-3(1)6 of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act, and Article 32 of the 6-4(1) of the 6-year imprisonment with prison labor, among those listed in the judgment of the court below, since the above 6-year imprisonment with prison labor for each of the above 6-year crimes shall be included in the 6-year imprisonment with prison labor, and since the 6-year imprisonment with prison labor for each of the above 6-year crimes shall be included in the 1-year imprisonment with prison labor for the above 5-year crimes, the 1-year imprisonment.

Judges Yoon Young (Presiding Judge) Lee (Presiding Judge)