The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. The judgment of the court below that recognized the whole guilty of 5g and levied additional collection on the whole purchase amount, even though the defendant received money from N for half of the purchase amount as to 2.5g that the defendant purchased 5g of philopphones with N and received money from N, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s punishment (one hundred months of imprisonment, additional collection of one million won) on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can be found to have purchased approximately 5g of philopon from D as stated in the judgment below, and approximately 2.5g of philopon purchased like the defendant's assertion was purchased with N upon request of N, and approximately 2.5g of philopon purchased.

Even if all of the phiphones constitute a crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence).

On the other hand, confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is not aimed at deprivation of profits from criminal conduct, but rather a disposition of punitive nature, so there was no profit from such crime.

Even if the court orders an additional collection of the value (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7251, Aug. 26, 2010). Therefore, it is justifiable for the court below to order an additional collection of the total amount of about five g of the penphone purchased by the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant appears to have led to the confession of and reflect against the instant crime, cooperation with the arrest of some penphone purchasers during the investigation process, and the fact that each of the instant crimes ought to be determined by taking into account equity with the case where the judgment on the instant crimes was rendered concurrently with the offense of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fa