The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In light of the legal principles as to the assertion of forfeiture of additional collection, the purpose of forfeiture is to deprive the benefit of crime, and the additional collection is to achieve the purpose of forfeiture, the value to be collected when it is impossible to confiscate the said goods, refers to the amount equivalent to the benefit that the criminal would have lost if he/she had been sentenced to forfeiture (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do352, May 28, 191). If it is impossible to confiscate the narcotics obtained from a foreign country even if they were unable to be confiscated, the additional collection shall be calculated based on the prior notice of the judgment, based on an ordinary transaction in the domestic market where the defendant is located.

In light of the above legal principles and records, it is just that the court below calculated an additional collection charge on a penphone administered by the defendant in Cambodia and Vietnam based on the amount of ordinary trade in the domestic market, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to additional collection.

2. As to the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, the grounds for the imposition of punishment on the defendant cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. In this case where two months of imprisonment, six months of imprisonment, and one hundred and seventy million won of an additional collection charge are imposed on the defendant.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.