The judgment below

We reverse the part concerning collection among the penalty surcharges.

3,295,700 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

3.2

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the 2 years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation of seized articles, confiscation of seized articles, collection of 3,595,700 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. There are extenuating circumstances to consider the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime with respect to the imprisonment portion and divided his mistake, and that the Defendant contributed to the investigation of the narcotics crime.

However, the crime of this case is likely to be criticized in that the defendant purchased, sold, administered, or possessed phiphones, and smokes marijuana, and the nature of the crime is not weak, and the amount of phiphones handled by the defendant is not smaller than the amount of punishment. In addition, the defendant had the history of being punished for narcotics crimes 11 times, and the defendant has already committed the crime of this case without being aware of it during the period of repeated offense after the execution of the final sentence is completed.

In light of the above circumstances, considering the various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. In addition to collection under the Narcotics Control Act, in cases where the whole or part of narcotics, etc. were confiscated from the owner or the last holder of the narcotics, it is the same as the confiscation of the narcotics, etc. in relation to other handlers, so the value of the narcotics, etc. confiscated shall not be additionally collected from other handlers (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2819, Jun. 11, 2009). The lower court acknowledged the criminal facts that “the Defendant requested the J around November 26, 2015 to purchase 1,50,000 philopon and request the purchase of philopon, and the J has purchased 10 gopon from a person who has no name and delivered it to the Defendant,” and then, applying the proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act.