A. The video CD in which the admissibility of the video CD, which Defendant A sold the drug, did not consent to the defendants to use the video CD as evidence, and was not proven to have reproduced the original as it was without editing or artificial adaptation, and thus, the judgment of the court below which found the defendants guilty on the basis of the above is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. Defendant A, who participated in the pharmaceutical sales of drugs, has given the explicit instruction or implied consent of the pharmacist at the time of the sale of “Ediiaulululululululule” (hereinafter “the instant drug”), and thus, it shall be deemed that the pharmacist sold the drug.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty has an error of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s witness F, on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the admissibility of a video CD, stated that, using a Handphone device, the Defendant purchased the instant drug from Defendant A, copied the image into a computer file, copied it into a CD, and then submitted it as evidence to an investigation agency. The lower court conducted a verification of the video recorded in the said CD, and adopted the video CD as evidence of guilt as to this part of the facts charged.

In addition, in cases where electronic media, such as a file recording the contents of a conversation, do not have the signature or seal of an originator or statementer due to its nature, and in cases where the contents are the original recording or copies reproduced from the original without any artificial adaptation, such as editing in the duplication process, it shall be proved that they are copies of the original, and where there is no such proof, it shall not be easily admitted as admissibility.