The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1,100,000 won shall be collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s above sentence is too unfluent and unfair, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in omitting the declaration of additional collection.

2. Article 67 of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc., which provides that “the narcotics, temporary narcotics, and facilities, equipment, funds, or means of transport provided for any crime provided for in this Act, and the proceeds therefrom shall be confiscated: Provided, That in cases where such confiscation is impossible, the equivalent value thereof shall be collected.” Thus, the court that meets the requirements shall, without fail, render a sentence of collection.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant administered Metepopty clograms (so-called philophones; hereinafter referred to as “philophones”) three times as stated in the judgment of the court below and separately purchased 800,000 philophones.

However, since it is impossible to confiscate philophones administered or purchased as such, 300,000 won for the three-time medication of philophones and 800,000 won for the transaction price of the said philophones and 800,000 won for the above philophones shall be subject to the necessary collection in accordance with the proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the additional collection under the proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

On the other hand, in a case where there are grounds for reversal concerning the main sentence, confiscation, or collection among the appellate judgment that sentenced forfeiture or collection, the Supreme Court may reverse only that part, but where the appellate court reverses the part on the grounds that forfeiture or collection did not have been sentenced, the appellate court's judgment did not have the part of forfeiture or collection, and thus, the part of conviction of the lower court shall not be reversed.