The judgment below

We reverse the part concerning collection among the penalty surcharges.

The remaining appeal by the defendant is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to sentence confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc. subject to ex officio Determination as to the part concerning collection, the requirements for sunset or collection should be related to the criminal facts for which a public prosecution has been instituted. As such, the court cannot sentence confiscation or collection as to the facts not recognized in the criminal facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do16170, Dec. 15, 2016). Whether the subject matter of confiscation or collection is subject to confiscation or collection, or recognition of the amount of collection is not related to the constituent elements of the crime, and it is not necessary to prove strict proof, but it is also necessary to recognize it based on evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4708, Jul. 10, 2014). The lower court’s judgment, based on the criminal facts, administered Mebamine dose over two times

After determining the person, the defendant ordered the collection of 200,000 won at the market price of the Metea Metetho 2 times per Metetho.

In light of the above legal principles, as long as the court below determined that the quantity of the Metep cryer administered in the crime cannot be specified, the court below cannot order the defendant to collect additional charges on the ground that the quantity of the Metep cryer who received the Metep cryer who received the Metepher

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below ordering collection by the defendant is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to collection.

B. Determination of the Defendant’s unfair argument on sentencing is highly likely to cause harm to individuals and society as well as individuals due to cryptism, toxicity, etc., and in particular, it is necessary to strictly cope with the Defendant’s crime of importing narcotics, etc., as it is highly likely that the spread of narcotics and its additional crimes may be caused.

The crimes of import of narcotics, which are organized, shall not only be the master-child who led the crimes, but also be responsible for the transportation and delivery of narcotics.