The judgment below

Among them, the part of confiscation against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant 5 to 8 of the seized evidence.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable (in case of Defendant A, 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment, 3 years of probation, 3 years of probation, 200 hours of community service, 1 year of probation, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, 200 hours of community service).

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment ex officio (the part of confiscation against Defendant A) and the judgment of the court below on the confiscation against Defendant A.

No. 9 (40) of the No. 9 of the No. 19 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., is similar to a “coman’s day” used for symptoms, such as cryp and al. when based on the result of appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, and thus does not constitute narcotics or psychotropic drugs. Thus, it does not constitute subject to confiscation under Article 67 of the Act

The judgment of the court below that forfeited No. 9 from Defendant A is erroneous in violation of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act.

The judgment below

Among them, the part of confiscation against the defendant A may no longer be maintained.

B. Determination of the grounds for appeal of this case is that the Defendants recognized the crime of this case and did not repeat the crime, and did not proceed to the crime such as arranging the sale of phiphones in the administration of phiphones, and cooperation with the investigation of philophones, considering the circumstances favorable to the Defendants. Narcotics-related crimes require strict measures, such as the crime that causes the degradation of individuals, homes, and society as a whole; the quantity of philophones handled by the Defendants and the frequency of crimes; the number of philophones handled by the Defendants was considerably large; the number of crimes committed by the Defendants voluntarily surrenders to the same type of crimes in February 2015 and the suspension of indictment was suspended for a condition of education, but the crimes related to philophones are not completely overcome, such as the age, character, character, occupation, family relationship of the Defendants, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime.