마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant administered a compactonon around January 19, 2015.
A confession made by an investigative agency, and G sold phiphones to the defendant.
In light of the fact that the defendant stated, the facts charged that he administered a philophone purchased from G on January 18, 2015 are guilty, the reinforcement evidence is also proven.
Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the above facts charged on the grounds that there is no evidence for reinforcement in addition to the confession of the defendant. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. On January 19, 2015, among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant, at the place indicated in paragraph (4) around January 19, 2015, administered a phiphone in accordance with paragraph (4) in the manner described in paragraph (4) of the lower judgment, using the amount of 0.03g gramphone purchased from G with 0.03g gramphones as indicated in the lower judgment at the place indicated in paragraph (4) of the lower judgment, to the left-hand part of the Defendant, and administered a phiphone in accordance with paragraph (4) of the lower judgment.
3. When the confession of the accused is the only evidence against the accused, it shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt (Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Since the confession of the accused is the only evidence against the accused, the admissibility of evidence shall not be admitted as evidence of the confession, and concurrent crimes are several crimes, there shall be evidence of reinforcement of each crime.
According to the records of this case, the defendant has been administered by an investigative agency on January 19, 2015 at around 05:30 Handphones.
By making a statement of the facts charged, the protocol of interrogation of G police suspects, which can be seen as evidence for reinforcement, is denied by the defendant, and thus cannot be used as evidence for reinforcement, and there is no other evidence for reinforcement.
In addition, since the fact that the Defendant administered philophones on January 18, 2015 is recognized as having been administered on January 18, 2015, it cannot be used as evidence to reinforce the fact that philophones administered on January 19, 2015.
Ultimately, the above facts charged are confessions of the defendant.