The judgment below

We reverse the part concerning collection among the penalty surcharges.

980,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The judgment below

(2).

1. On the summary of the grounds for appeal, the defendant asserts that the defendant is too unaffortable, and that the prosecutor is too unafford and unfair, as it is too unaffortable, with regard to the punishment sentenced by the court below (a year and six months of imprisonment, a suspended sentence three years

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the collection of additional money on the defendant.

Confiscation or collection of narcotics under Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act is not for the purpose of depriving the profits from a criminal act, but rather for a disposition of punitive nature. Thus, even if no profits have been acquired from such criminal act, the court shall order the collection of the equivalent value. With respect to the scope of the collection, a series of actions by the defendant who handles the same narcotics constitutes separate crimes, and the equivalent amount of the equivalent narcotics should be collected separately for each act (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do546, Sept. 8, 200; 200Do516, Jun. 11, 2009; 2009Do2819, Jun. 11, 2009; 2005Da16075, Apr. 1, 207; 2005; 2005Da2819, Jun. 16, 200, etc.). According to the records, the court below determined as follows.

Therefore, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below (Evidence No. 689 of the Highest 689), the defendant purchased 1.5g philophones in 950,000, and administered 0.44g g with name-free male, Twel (Defendant 3’s 0.18g, name-free male 0.06g, and Twelve 0.2g) remaining 1.06g, and the above 1.06g is seized.