The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

1,670,000 won shall be collected jointly from the Defendants.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant B and C stated the “unfair form of punishment” in the statement of grounds for appeal as grounds for appeal, Defendant B and C did not object to the principal sentence against the above Defendants, and the joint and several part of the amount of additional collection was erroneous, the above grounds for appeal are determined based on the misapprehension of legal principles as to additional collection.

Since the collection against the Defendants constitutes a punitive collection that imposes a joint and several liability on the accomplices, it constitutes a punitive collection that imposes a joint and several liability on the Defendants, it should be ordered to collect 11,670,000 won, and the amount of such collection should be KRW 14,550,000 from the Defendants A, KRW 12,920,000 from the Defendants B, and KRW 13,30,000 from the Defendants C, respectively, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the additional collection.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant A (the defendant A) is too unreasonable and unfair. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant A (the imprisonment of one year and six months, the suspended sentence of two years, the fine of 5,00,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Since the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc., which determines the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of additional collection, is a disposition with punitive nature, a full amount of the values handled by not only the owner or the last holder of the narcotics but also the person who handles the same narcotics, etc. shall be ordered to be collected within the scope of the handling. However, if the whole or part of the narcotics, etc. were confiscated from the owner or the last holder, it is the same as the forfeiture of the narcotics, etc. in relation

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2819 Decided June 11, 2009). With respect to the Defendants’ crime of selling 30gh-phones as stated in paragraph (2) of the judgment below, the lower court pursuant to Articles 16(1) and 13(1)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking in Narcotics, Etc., the sales proceeds of KRW 14,550,000 other than seized 1g-phones.