[1] The legal nature of confiscation and collection under Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act and the scope of collection

[2] Whether the price received in return for the sale of psychotropic drugs is subject to the necessary confiscation and collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (affirmative)

[3] The case affirming the judgment below that found a person guilty of selling a Mesatong in two times and ordered the collection of the total amount of the proceeds from the act

[1] Confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is not aimed at deprivation of profits from a criminal act, but rather a disposition of punitive nature. Thus, even if no profit has been acquired from the criminal act, the court shall order the collection of the equivalent value, and if there are many persons who committed the crime, the court shall order the collection of the equivalent value within the scope they handled.

[2] In the event that psychotropic drugs are sold to others, the proceeds, etc. received for sale shall be confiscated as necessary from the criminal act under Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and if confiscation is impossible, the equivalent value shall be collected.

[3] The case affirming the judgment below that found the psychotropic drug master to be guilty of selling the psychotropic drug to others twice and ordered the collection of the total amount of the proceeds therefrom

[1] Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. / [2] Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. / [3] Articles 2 subparagraph 4 (b), 4 (1), 60 (1) 3, and 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5158 decided Dec. 28, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 440) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 96Do3397 decided Mar. 14, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1160) Supreme Court Decision 200Do546 decided Sept. 8, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2164) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Do508 decided May 12, 1998

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Go Jae-il

Seoul High Court Decision 2010No871 decided May 28, 2010

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is not aimed at deprivation of profits through criminal acts, but rather a disposition of punitive nature. Thus, even if no profits have been acquired from such criminal acts, the court shall order the collection of the equivalent value. If there are several persons who committed the crime, the court shall order the collection of the equivalent value within the scope they handled. In addition, in case where psychotropic drugs are sold to others, the full amount of the pharmaceutical value shall be collected within the scope they handled. In addition, when psychotropic drugs are sold to others, the proceeds, etc. received as consideration for sale shall be confiscated as proceeds from criminal acts under Article 67 of the same Act, and if confiscation is impossible, the equivalent value shall be collected (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do5158, Dec. 28, 2001

The court below found the defendant guilty of selling Mambamins twice and maintained the judgment of the court of first instance ordering the defendant to collect 3,600,000 won, which is the full amount of the proceeds from the act. The above judgment of the court below is just in light of the above legal principles and records, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of collection, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, in this case where the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for less than 10 years, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

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

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)