The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of the value of additional collection, thereby adversely collecting KRW 200,000 from the Defendant.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) on the ground of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As the confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Narcotics Management Act, etc. Act on the Determination of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine is not aimed at deprived of the benefits from a criminal act, but rather is a disposition of the punitive nature, the said crime did not have acquired the benefits.

Even if the court orders the collection of the equivalent value and the scope of such collection, if there are many persons who have committed the same crime, the court shall order the respective persons to collect the equivalent value of the narcotics within the scope they handled (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do3250, Mar. 23, 1993; 2001Do5158, Dec. 28, 2001); however, if the defendant orders the collection of the equivalent value of the narcotics within the scope they handled on the basis of the defendant, the court shall order the full amount of the equivalent value of the narcotics to be collected; however, the series of acts by the defendant who handled the same narcotics constitutes separate crimes, and it does not require separate collection for each act.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, each of the crimes of this case is deemed to have been administered after the Defendant received 0.03 m. from E, and the Defendant received 0.03 m. from E, and thus, even if the Defendant constitutes separate crimes, it is reasonable to deem that the amount to be collected from the Defendant is only one million won for the m. m. c. c. c., to which the Defendant received m. c. c. c., and that the amount to be collected should not be collected separately from the price for the m. c. c. c., to which the Defendant received c. c. c., and the value related to the administration.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on confiscation and collection under Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act, thereby0 million won from the Defendant.