The judgment below

The part concerning confiscation shall be reversed.

Seized evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (in total 0.2g).

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (a punishment of imprisonment of one year and two months, confiscations Nos. 1 through 5, 100,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The lower court sentenced the Defendant to forfeiture referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 5 of the evidence pursuant to the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act (hereinafter “Narcotic Control Act”).

If seized articles are not existing at the time of declaration of judgment or seized articles are already destroyed pursuant to Articles 130(2), 130(3) and 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court may not render a sentence to confiscate such articles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4182, Jun. 14, 2012); 0.4 square meters (proof No. 1); 0.2 square meters (proof No. 4); 0.2 square meters (proof No. 4) in which the penphone was recorded was consumed for the appraisal at the National Scientific Research Institute; and 0.2 g (proph 3) in white decision-making body (proph gram, No. 3) was also consumed for the appraisal.

Therefore, confiscation cannot be sentenced for each of the above seized articles.

Meanwhile, the main text of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act provides that "temporary narcotics, facilities, equipment funds, or means of transportation provided for any crime prescribed in this Act, and profits accrued therefrom shall be confiscated."

In addition, Article 48(1)1 of the former Criminal Act provides that "any object that has been, or is about to be, provided for a criminal act" as an object that may be confiscated. In order to confiscate a "object that has been, to be provided for a criminal act", it should be recognized that the object is an object that has been, or is about to be, provided for the criminal act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10034, Feb. 14, 2008, etc.). In addition, among 15 disposable injections (No. 57-60 of the evidence record), it is not used (Evidence No. 57-60 of the evidence record), liquid, or white body, which is contained in the judgment of the court below.