The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination (this part is identical to the grounds for reversal of the Supreme Court’s judgment) is examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

If all or part of the narcotics, etc. were confiscated from the owner or the last holder of the narcotics, etc. under the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., it is the same as the confiscation in relation to other handlers, so the value of the confiscated narcotics shall not be collected from other handlers (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2819, Jun. 11, 2009). The lower court determined that the Defendant promised to receive KRW 16 million from C on May 1, 2015, and caused approximately 167 g of Mepta (hereinafter referred to as “phiphonephone”), which is a psychotropic medicine, to obtain approximately KRW 167g to C, and that the Defendant collected KRW 16 million from the Defendant by applying the proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act.

However, according to the records, C was prosecuted for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (compact) with respect to the facts constituting the crime that he had 167.37g g, among the philophones he had received from the Defendant as Ulsan District Court 2015 Godan 1226, and the above court sentenced C to the confiscation of the 167.37g, which was seized by C on July 8, 2015, and it can be recognized that the above judgment became final and conclusive. As such, even in relation with the Defendant, it is the same as the confiscation of the above philophones, and the value of the philophones confiscated by the Defendant cannot be collected additionally.

Even so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding collection of additional collection, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. According to the conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is ruled through the examination and alteration of evidence.

Criminal facts

this Court recognizes the substance of the evidence and the summary thereof.