The judgment below

I reverse the forfeited portion.

in total 4.75g No. 1, total 4.8gs of seized Mampamins.

1. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation and collection) to the gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, even though the Defendant was aware that his mistake was remarkably divided, the Defendant again committed the instant crime without being subject to punishment for the same kind of crime, even though he was able to have the record of punishment for the same kind of crime including the same offense, in view of the following factors: the amount of narcotics handled by the Defendant is considerable; the social risk and harm of narcotics crime; the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and other conditions of sentencing as shown in pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is recognized that the sentence of the lower court is appropriate, and therefore, the above argument by the Defendant is groundless.

B. An ex officio determination: (a) based on the record, an ex officio determination was made with respect to 0.05g of philophone 4.8g (Evidence No. 1) seized, which was a request for appraisal by the National Scientific Investigation Agency; and (b) such 0.05g can be recognized as having been fully consumed in the course of appraisal by the said Institute on or around June 2012. As such, the lower court rendered a sentence of forfeiture to the portion which was already destroyed and remains unclaimed, the part of the lower judgment that affected the conclusion of the judgment, in violation of the statutes, is erroneous.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit, but there is an ex officio reversal of the confiscation part among the judgment below. Thus, pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment below's confiscation shall be reversed, and the Mesa-mine's 4.75g (excluding No. 1 and No. 4.8g in total) confiscated under the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act shall be confiscated, and the defendant's remaining appeal is without merit, and it shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so ordered as per Disposition.