beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.11.30 2016고정1766

마약류관리에관한법률위반(마약)

Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. No person who outlines the facts charged shall cultivate plants used as raw materials for narcotics without obtaining approval from the Minister of Food and Drug Safety;

Nevertheless, at around 14:20 on May 9, 2016, the Defendant cultivated the 1,100 poppy cost, which is the plant used as a raw material for narcotics, at the Defendant’s house located in the YY C, Jeonnam-gun, the Republic of Korea, at around 14:20.

2. Determination

A. On May 9, 2016, the Defendant’s residential garden was found to have been 1,100 poppys (hereinafter “the instant poppy”) by enforcement officers around the Defendant’s residential garden, and the fact that the instant poppy ingredients were detected in the instant poppy ingredients is consistent with the facts charged.

나. 그러나 피고인은 이 법정 및 수사기관에서 ‘2016. 5. 초순경 이 사건 양귀비의 싹이 올라오는 것을 발견하였으나, 쑥갓으로 생각하여 방치해두었을 뿐 이를 재배하거나 그 종자를 파종한 사실이 없고, 이 사건 양귀비가 마약의 원료가 되는 식물인지 단속 전까지 알지 못하였다’고 진술하였다.

C. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the height of the quantity of the instant quantity was 3 to 15cc at the time of crackdown, and all of which were not opened, there are several instances in the official text that the Supreme Prosecutors' Office directed the special control of the quantity of the quantity of the instant quantity. Among this, there are several kinds of 'Papaever L and Paver L and Paver DC's kinds of 20,000 kinds of non-pharmaceutical drugs are subject to regulation under the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which are not subject to regulation, and it is difficult to identify the quantity of the quantity subject to regulation into the land.

"The facts described above (in the 8 pages of investigation records), the place in which the quantity of fry in this case is found is not the part in which the defendant actually cultivates crops among the defendant's dwelling gardens, but the part in which the defendant was in contact with the lower part of the retaining wall.