The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Five proofs for non-use disposables seized.

1. In light of the substance of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and additional collection of 400,000 won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the records first examined the following facts: “3.09g "(No. 1) for a single-use divers containing white divers,” “3.03g(No. 5) for a single-use divers containing a lue liquid,” and “1.79g(No. 6) for a vinyl divers with white divers,” which can be recognized as having been entrusted with appraisal by the National Scientific Research and Research Institute, and the fact that the said Institute had already been destroyed and still failed to exist after the appraisal. As such, the court below sentenced the forfeiture of the above seized articles that have already been destroyed and remains, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6982 Decided January 28, 2010). Next, confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is not aimed at depriving a person of benefits arising from a criminal act, but rather is a disposition of a punitive nature. Thus, the benefit from the criminal act was not acquired.

The court shall order an additional collection of the value, and if there are many persons who have committed the crime with regard to the scope of the additional collection, the court shall order each person to collect the full amount of the drug value within the scope he handled. In addition, in the case of selling psychotropic drugs to other persons, the price, etc. received in return for the sale shall be confiscated as profits from the criminal act provided for in Article 67 of the same Act, and if it is impossible to confiscate

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7251 Decided August 26, 2010). However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant is against E from 203 to 203 of the DNA telecom with the period of Ansan-si around 10:30 on March 14, 2014.