Foreign Canada at the place of registration

[Defendant-Appellee]

except that the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of four years from the date of the final determination of this judgment. The foregoing sentence shall be confiscated, 2.23g (No. 1), sususru 4 (No. 2) and one postal bag (No. 3) concealed in the seized solid pool.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of smoking marijuana shall be acquitted.

Although the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, at around 16:20 on September 2, 2008, the Defendant, at around 16:20, carried out a letter of mail of 00 apartment 00,000,000 located in the Busan metropolitan transportation Daegu Zone, in which the Defendant was living, and received the letter of mail sent after concealing B’s 2.23g of marijuana from the Canadian Bacber on the high-burine open space around August 21, 2008.

Summary of Evidence

omitted.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 58(1)5 and Article 3 subparag. 8 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (Selection of Imprisonment or Imprisonment)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

In relation to the point of import of marijuana, it is recognized that the mail containing marijuana has arrived at the domicile of the defendant, as shown in the facts charged, but it is not known that the defendant himself was sent for any reason, not the recipient.

2. Determination

앞서 본 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, ① 피고인은 누가 우편물을 보낸 것인지 알 수 없다고 하면서도 추측컨대, '샤샤'라고 불리는 한국인 C가 피고인의 딸을 납치하고 칼로 협박한 사실로 형사처벌을 받게 된 것에 대하여 불만을 품고, 자신을 음해하기 위하여 위와 같은 우편물을 보낸 것으로 보인다고 주장하나, C는 피고인이 적시하는 범죄사실로 2008. 7. 22. 구속수감 중이었던 관계로 위 우편물의 발송일자인 2008. 8. 21.에는 우편물을 보낼 수 있는 처지에 있지 못하였던 점, ② 우편물의 발신지가 피고인의 고향인 캐나다 알버타 주 애드먼드시인 점, ③ 우편물에 기재된 필적도 비영어권인 한국인의 필적이라기보다는 오히려 원어민의 필적에 가깝다는 점 등에 비추어 보면 피고인이 우편물을 수령하는 방법으로 대마를 밀수입한 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 이와 다른 견해를 전제로 한 피고인 및 변호인의 위 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

1. The reason for sentencing 1. The crime of this case is that the defendant imported narcotics, etc., 2.23g into the Republic of Korea.

Considering the social harm and injury that may affect Korean citizens' health, where smuggling imported is distributed, the defendant should take into consideration: Provided, That the above marijuana seems to have been brought in by the defendant to smoke not for distribution in Korea, but for its entire seizure, and the extent of regulation on marijuana is relatively weak than Korea in Canada, which is the defendant's home country, and the recognition of its illegality is not firm, special consideration should be given to determine punishment.

2. In full view of the defendant's age, occupation, family environment, motive for committing the crime, means and results thereof, all of the sentencing conditions shall be determined and sentenced as ordered by the defendant for the crime of this case, including the circumstances after committing the crime.

The acquittal portion

1. Facts charged;

Despite the fact that the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, the Defendant smoked from August 27, 2008 to September 2, 2008, in a place where it is impossible to know the detailed location of Busan (hereinafter referred to as the “SP”) from August 27, 2008 to September 2, 2008, by burning marijuana, where the specific quantity of which is unknown, and by

2. Defendant's assertion;

The Defendant acknowledged the fact that he smoked marijuana, but not smoked in Busan, such as the facts charged, but smoked for travel purposes at the time of staying in Thailand between August 17, 2008 and August 22, 2008, and this is not subject to punishment under Article 5 of the Criminal Act, which provides for a foreigner’s overseas crime.

3. Prosecutor's assertion;

As a result of the defendant's urine appraisal, the time when marijuana ingredients are detected in the urine, and the time when marijuana ingredients are detected in the urine is about 10 days for ordinary persons and about 30 days for habitual medications, so it is recognized that the suspect smokes marijuana after returning to the Republic of Korea on February 24, 2008, when marijuana ingredients are detected from the date of the inspection. Accordingly, the defendant does not constitute a foreigner's overseas crime.

4. Fact-finding and determination of whether a crime has been committed

A. According to the relevant evidence, the Defendant’s 40ml was taken on September 2, 2008 during the investigation process of the instant case, and the detection of marijuana ingredients was recognized as a result of the appraisal thereof.

B. However, in light of the thesis of the "Evaluation of Uniforms of Narcotics Using Samples" attached to a test submission, the term of "abstinence of marijuana ingredients" means "abstinence of marijuana ingredients commences from 4-8 hours after smoking to 5-10 days after smoking, and the simple smoking is determined to be about 5-10 days after smoking."

C. Meanwhile, according to the above drilling and the fact inquiry report of the National Scientific Research Institute: ① there are cases in which marijuana is detected by 12 days or more on the person who singing it once, ② the period during which the person can appraise whether marijuana ingredients are administered or not due to salvines depends on the theory of drugs; ② the period during which drugs are administered and discharged; the kind of drugs, dose, medication method, the degree of absorption into the body, and the speed absorption into the body, personal and environmental factors, etc.; ③ the number of salvous drugs and the number of salvines cannot be accurately known as the result of salvine appraisal; ③ the number of salvable drugs and the number of salvines cannot be measured as the number of salvable drugs, ⑤ the number of 10 days after the last 28th g of the year during which the defendant asserted that salving it was smoking in the Republic of Korea. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20680, Aug. 28, 2008>

In the instant case where the Defendant’s smoking volume is not known as 45 days, and 11 days, if the Defendant’s actual smoking volume exceeds 1 minute, it may have smokeed in Thailand when presumed that the Defendant’s actual smoking volume exceeds 1 minute. However, even if the Defendant’s smoking volume exceeds 12 days, 12 days have not passed since 12 days have passed since her claim for smoking, 3 days have passed since her claim for smoking and the period between her claim for smoking and her claim for smoking, and 11 days have passed since her claim for smoking amount was made by the Prosecutor’s Office. Accordingly, even if the Defendant submitted 10 ncg or more during her mouth, 10 ncg or more of hemp ingredients, 3 days have passed since her claim for smoking content can still be found to have been made by the Defendant’s prosecutor’s office to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been 100 ng or more.

D. In full view of the above circumstances, even if the defendant smokes marijuana, the possibility of smoking during his/her stay in the Thailand cannot be ruled out, as alleged in the facts charged, and it cannot be determined that the defendant smokes marijuana in Korea from August 27, 2008, which was 6 days before September 2, 2008, retroactively from the point of time of the urine inspection, to the date of the inspection, or conviction thereof.

E. Although there is no reason to view that the Defendant smoked marijuana in Korea on the date indicated in the facts charged, the Defendant cannot be found guilty of this point unless there is any obvious evidence to exclude such doubt as to the Defendant’s liability for the crime, since the act subject to discussion in this case is likely to be an act that is not subject to punishment for a foreigner’s overseas crime as above.

5. Conclusion

Ultimately, since the above facts charged about this point constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Gin-ok

Judge No. Doingk