The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

No. 1 of the seized evidence shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 700,00) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1) and No. 2 (unusedd 1) (unusedd 1) were used for the instant crime, but did not confiscate the articles used for, or intended to be provided for, the instant crime. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts, it can be acknowledged that the evidence No. 1 (one-time injection equipment used for the administration of phiphones) seized was the equipment used for the crime of the administration of phiphones in this case. Thus, the lower court omitted the pronouncement of confiscation from the Defendant’s failure to confiscate evidence No. 1 pursuant to the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act, and thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion on this part is with

However, in order to confiscate a certain article as "narcotics, facilities, equipment, funds, or means of transport provided for in the Narcotics Control Act", it should be recognized that the article was provided for the criminal act in question, which is found guilty (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10034, Feb. 14, 2008). No evidence exists to acknowledge that the seized No. 2 (unusedd No. 2) was provided for a crime in violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which the court below found guilty.

Even if the defendant tried to commit another crime using No. 2 of the No. 2 of the No. 2 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which the court below found guilty, the defendant tried to provide each crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (competence) which the court below found guilty.