The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

400,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The grounds of appeal by the defendant and prosecutor are examined ex officio prior to the judgment.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, while calculating the amount to be collected in accordance with the crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act, the court below ordered to collect 600,000 won for the delivery of 0.1g of Mepta 0.1g for three medications (=3 times x 100,000 won) as well as 300,000 won for the actual transaction of 0.07g Mepta for three medications.

B. However, it is reasonable to calculate the price of the Metepia to be collected in accordance with the above law as to each of the crimes in this case, based on the actual transaction price for the crime of buying and selling good offices, retail price for the crime of delivery, and one-time price for the crime of medication.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5971 Decided July 25, 2013). C.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, according to the records of the "Monthly Trends of Narcotics, etc. (Evidence No. 19, and No. 248 pages)" duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the retail price of the Mepta in Seoul Special Metropolitan City is KRW 1 million per gram and the price paid at the time of arranging the sale of the instant case is KRW 300,000,000.

Therefore, even though the price of the Metea Pacule to be collected from the defendant is KRW 400,000 (0.1g x 1 million) (the price of the delivery of this case is KRW 300,000), the court below affirmed the defendant as to the administration of the delivery of this case based on the one-time price of the delivery of this case, and affected the judgment by calculating the amount of the additional collection. Therefore, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained (On the other hand, the defendant led to the fact of the administration of the Mete