beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court ordered the Defendant to additionally collect KRW 203,00,000 from the Defendant with respect to the administration of phiphonephones in the instant case and the crime of smoking marijuana, but the said value is not subject to additional collection under the provisions on confiscation and additional collection under the Narcotics Control Act (Article 67).
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 years of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection KRW 4,133,00) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles on collection of narcotics (1) since the collection of narcotics under the Act on the Control of Narcotics is not aimed at depriving the profits from criminal acts, but rather is a disposition with punitive nature, the court has to order the collection of the value, and even if it did not gain profits from the criminal act, the court has to order the collection of the value in full, within the scope of handling the same mental medicine as not only the owner or the final holder, but also the person who handles the same psychotropic drug (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9314, Mar. 15, 2007). (2) In light of the above legal principles, it is justifiable that the court below ordered the defendant to collect the value of the instant case in full, 200,000 won in total, including the value of the clopon administered twice, and 300,000 won in total, which has been smoked once, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.
Therefore, the defendant's misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.
B. The records of each of the instant crimes, including the following: (a) the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing; (b) the possibility that narcotics-related crimes may have a serious adverse impact on society as a whole, by not only avoiding the body and mind of an individual, but also impairing the health of the people or inducing other crimes; (c) there is a need to strictly punish them; (d) the defendant has the history of being punished for the same kind of crime; and (e) there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment.