The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The additional collection charge shall be equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

1. The lower court’s sentence (two years of suspended execution of one year, confiscation, and collection) on the summary of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too unfilled and unfair.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the records, the defendant, according to the evidence and records, found the following facts: (a) the defendant arranged the purchase and sale of a sample sample containing 0.35 g (No. 1 seized evidence) to a single c, "C" (hereinafter referred to as "written phone"); and (b) the defendant voluntarily submitted the above written phone to the investigative agency for seizure.

Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. shall be confiscated for narcotics, temporary narcotics, facilities, equipment, funds or means of transport provided for any crime prescribed in this Act, and proceeds therefrom.

Provided, That where it is impossible to confiscate it, the value thereof shall be collected additionally.

As stated in the above, as long as the confiscation of seized opon 0.35g can be possible, this part cannot be collected at the same time as the confiscation of the above opon 0.35g, and the court below, however, has committed an error in calculating the collection amount for the defendant, including its value, while confiscation of the above opon 0.35g.

Therefore, if the value of the penphone, except for the above 0.35 gopon, is calculated again, the court below ordered the Defendant to collect 1,260,000 won, since the Defendant’s price of 0.03gopon administered by the Defendant is 1,00,000 won. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the collection of additional charges under the Narcotics Control Act, or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In this respect, the part of the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. The instant crime of determining the prosecutor’s unfair assertion of sentencing was committed by the Defendant upon request for the sale of philophones and mediating the sale of philophones, medication, and possession in the process of selling them, and such crime of narcotics is not only detrimental to an individual’s mental and physical health, but also serious harm socially and socially.