마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. At the time of the arrest of this case by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, only the counter that the defendant purchased phiphones, there is no evidence to prove the suspicion of the defendant's phiphone medication, and because it is difficult to recognize urgency, emergency arrest against the defendant does not meet the requirements of emergency arrest.
Therefore, since the defense and the hair of the defendant acquired in the form of voluntary submission after such illegal emergency arrest continue to be in an illegal detention state, it is not admissible against the warrant requirement and due process principle, and the results of the examination such as the examination report and the appraisal request report are also inadmissible.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case based on the evidence illegally collected, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (one hundred million won in imprisonment and one hundred thousand won in collection) is too unreasonable.
2. The Defendant is not a narcotics handler.
From August 24, 2013 to September 2, 2013, the Defendant administered psychotropic drugs, in an insulous manner, Metropopon (one philopon) in the Daegu Seo-gu Scatteringdong or Pyeongdong (hereinafter referred to as “Mamopon”).
3. Determination
A. Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “Any evidence collected in violation of the due process shall not be admitted as evidence.”
Accordingly, not only evidence collected by investigative agencies but also secondary evidence obtained based on it can not be used as evidence of conviction.
However, the violation of the procedure by the investigative agency does not constitute a violation of the substantive contents of due process.