beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.10.08 2020노631

마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the Supreme Court Decision 2015Do5608 Decided August 30, 2016, the said designation and announcement was invalidated on the ground that the Minister of Food and Drug Safety, on June 11, 2014, designated and announced as temporary psychotropic drugs with regard to alknitrot, which is a component of “rsh” in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, exceeded the scope of delegation by the mother law.

After that, on May 16, 2019, the relevant statutes were amended, and on May 16, 2019, the Minister of Food and Drug Safety had no temporary narcotics until the Minister of Food and Drug Safety re-designated nitrot as temporary narcotics. In around 2018, the Defendant told at the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office that it was not easy for the prosecution investigators to investigate a separate crime related to narcotics, and that it was not easy to do so from the prosecution investigators at the time of the instant crime. As such, there was justifiable reason to believe that the instant crime was not easy narcotics.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 16 of the Criminal Act claiming misapprehension of legal principles provides that his act of misunderstanding that does not constitute a crime under the law shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding. It does not mean a simple site of law, but it means that a person is not punishable if he knows that his act constitutes a crime under general circumstances but, in his special circumstances, it does not constitute a crime under the law, he is not punishable if there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do2088, Nov. 10, 1995). Even according to the Defendant’s assertion, such a ground is merely a fact that the Plaintiff had known that the Plaintiff was re-designated and re-designated as temporary narcotics, and thus constitutes a mere legal site. The Defendant mispers that the Defendant was not temporary narcotics at the time of committing the instant crime.

(2) as such; or