The judgment below

The part concerning confiscation shall be reversed.

Seized evidence 1 to 5 and 8 shall be confiscated.

The judgment of the court below.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. The main sentence of Article 67 of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc. subject to the ex officio Determination of Confiscation provides that “narcotics, temporary narcotics, and facilities, equipment, funds, or means of transportation provided for any crime provided for in this Act, and profits accrued therefrom shall be confiscated,” so the court that meets the requirements shall, without fail, declare confiscation.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the "0.02g" stated in the quantity of the relevant evidence among the total list of seized articles No. 8 of the evidence seized No. 5 is deemed to be a clerical error in the "0.22g" in light of the respective descriptions of 59-1, 59-2.

【Metelopopon” (so-called “philopon”, hereinafter referred to as “philopon”).

) Since plastic bags containing white bags presumed to be suspected may be recognized as having been provided for the crime listed in Paragraph 2 of the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below (0.22g acceptance of penphones), the above seized articles are subject to necessary confiscation in accordance with the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which omitted the confiscation of the above confiscated article is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to confiscation under the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act, which affected the conclusion of judgment

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding confiscation can no longer be maintained.

3. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor, and the sentencing by the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable conditions for the Defendant.

The circumstances in which the defendant asserts as the reason for appeal are identical to those in which the prosecutor asserts.