The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for eight months, each of the defendants B.

except that this shall not apply.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor for a period of three years, etc.; Defendant B: a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor for a period of eight months; etc.) of the lower court is deemed too unjustifiable and unreasonable;

2. The main sentence of Article 67 of the Act on the Ex officio Determination of Narcotics, Etc. provides that “the narcotics, temporary narcotics, and facilities, equipment, funds, or means of transport provided for any crime as provided for in this Act, and the proceeds therefrom shall be confiscated, so the court shall, without fail, confiscate them.”

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, since the above seized articles 6, 8 through 10, and 14 can be recognized as falling under the facts that were used in the custody of Metepha through Metepha and Metephamins and marijuana, which were narcotics provided by the defendants for each crime in the judgment of the court below, and the above seized articles shall be subject to necessary confiscation pursuant to the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act (Provided, That in cases of subparagraph 4 of Article 67, since there is no evidence that the above seized articles are related to facts found in the crime in the judgment of the court below, the above seized articles shall not be sentenced to confiscation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do16170, Dec. 15, 2016). Nevertheless, the court below omitted the above seized articles, contrary to the legal principles on confiscation under the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.