The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

one during which seizure has been effected (No. 1).

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s failure to sentence the Defendant to the confiscation of evidence No. 1 (one injection) is unlawful.

2) The lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment, and additional collection KRW 200,000) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is deemed unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As the main text of Article 67 of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc., which provides that “the 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,” the court that satisfies the requirements shall necessarily confiscate them.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, subparagraph 1 (one injection period) which was seized by the investigative agency from the defendant constitutes the equipment provided for the crime of Paragraph 2 of the judgment below as stated by the defendant, and thus, the above seized article is subject to necessary sunset in accordance with the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation under the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. [On the other hand, even if the above seized articles are not subject to a necessary seizure, considering the fact that the above seized articles directly provided for a part of the crime of this case and are used as an instrument essential for the crime, and that if the above articles are not confiscated, they may be used again for the same crime of the defendant, it is reasonable to confiscate them pursuant to Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the court below erred by exceeding the discretionary power on discretionary confiscation and affecting the conclusion of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1586, May 23, 2013).