The judgment below

The part concerning confiscation shall be reversed.

The judgment below

The appeal by the defendant against the remainder of the two shall be filed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although evidence No. 1, which had been confiscated, was a mobile phone opened after the date of the instant crime, and could not be used for each of the instant crimes, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation of evidence No. 1.

B. The portion of the lower court’s punishment, other than confiscation, (one hundred months of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether it is subject to forfeiture of judgment as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is not related to the facts constituting a crime, and therefore strict proof is not necessary, but also, it should be recognized by evidence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1392 Decided June 26, 2008). The main text of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act provides that “narcotics, temporary narcotics, and facilities, equipment, funds, or means of transportation provided for a crime prescribed in this Act, and profits therefrom shall be confiscated.” As long as the requirement is satisfied, the court must pronounce confiscation. However, there is no evidence to deem that subparagraph 1 of seized evidence corresponds to the necessary confiscation stipulated in the above provision.

(In light of the data submitted by the Defendant at the trial, evidence No. 1 appears to have been opened on February 15, 2019, which was after the date of each of the crimes in this case. Nevertheless, the lower court sentenced the forfeiture of evidence No. 1 by applying the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on forfeiture of the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of misunderstanding the legal principles that points this out is reasonable, and the part of the judgment of the court below concerning confiscation cannot be maintained as is.

B. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, this shall be respected.