마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is not a person handling narcotics.
1. On November 27, 2012, the Defendant, around November 26, 2012, received a remittance of one million won as the purchase price for phiphones, upon request from D to accept phiphones from November 26, 2012.
After November 27, 2012, the Defendant sold approximately 2.1g of philopon, which is contained in D three in the house of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan E-building 803, for a single-time injection device, from November 27, 2012 to D.
2. On November 27, 2012, the Defendant received and accepted approximately 0.7 grams from D without compensation at the same time and place as that set forth in the preceding paragraph.
3. On December 1, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 13:00 on December 1, 2012, at the home of the said D, received one million won as the purchase price for phiphones upon the request to seek phiphones from D from D; and (b) received one million won as the purchase price for phiphones.
After 21:40 on the same day, the Defendant sold 1.4g gramphones to D, which were contained in the one-time injection machine at the house of the above D.
4. On December 1, 2012, the Defendant, at the same time and place as set forth in the foregoing 3.3. Around December 1, 2012, the Defendant, in a single-use injection machine, divided two 0.1g of philophones into two in a single-use injection machine, and injected them into their arms and dilution with water.
5. On December 1, 2012, the Defendant received and accepted approximately 0.35 g of philophones, which were contained in D in a single-use injection machine, at the same time and place as the foregoing 4.4.
2. (1) Determination is based on the prosecutor’s burden of proof of the facts charged in a criminal trial, and the conviction is based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
Supreme Court Decision 201No. 11. 11.