Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flavoring) and the Narcotics Control Act (mariju)

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be subject to probation and shall be ordered to take pharmacologic treatment for 40 hours.

The seized green plants 2,44g (Evidence 2), 3.07g (Evidence 3), the pipes used in smoking in marijuana (Evidence 5), the pipes used in smoking in marijuana (Evidence 6), one green pipeline (Evidence 9.5cm in length) used in smoking in marijuana, and one (Evidence 9.9cm in length) used in smoking in marijuana, and one (Evidence 12), each of the decision-making body (Evidence 12) in presumption of opon shall be confiscated.

5,172,880 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge shall be ordered to be paid provisionally.

Even though the defendant is not a person handling narcotics, the defendant treated the psychotropic drugs, such as Megatopists (hereinafter referred to as 'Handphonephones') and 'marijuths' as follows:

[2017Gohap901]

1. Purchasing philophones;

On April 2017, the Defendant purchased approximately KRW 35g of 10 million from F in his e-mail vehicle parked in front of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dtel.

2. Medication of phiphones.

A. On May 1, 2017, the Defendant administered the vapors from the Defendant’s residence located in the said Dtel 2005, 0.1g of scopon on the pipe, putting about 0.1g of scopon on the pipe, and throwing the vapors from which scopon was attached on the pipe.

B. On August 17, 2017, the Defendant administered an influorial philophone with a pipe in the residence of the above Defendant at 03:00.

C. Around August 21, 2017, the Defendant administered the vapor 0.2g of philopon in the instant Defendant’s residence on a gambling ground, and administered as soon as possible, the steam emitted by attaching a lazine fire.

3. Purchasing marijuana;

At around 20:00 on August 19, 2017, the Defendant agreed to purchase marijuana from the Internet G’s “H” on the name in which IDI was used, and transferred 0.234 bitcos equivalent to KRW 70-8 million to the bitcos known to the said sale. The Defendant purchased marijuana from around 01:00 on August 20, 201 to 02:00 on the following day by finding six ghs of the building near the Seocho-gu Seoul High Court’s “K” located in the Seocho-gu Seoul High Court.

4. Smoking in marijuana.

A. At around 04:00 on August 20, 2017, the Defendant smoked by inserting approximately 0.2g of marijuana in a glass wave in the above Defendant’s residence and attaching a string with a string to a smoke.

B. On August 23, 2017, around 03:00, the Defendant smoked approximately 0.2g of marijuana in the above-mentioned manner at the dwelling of the above Defendant.

5. Possession of marijuana and philophones;

A. On August 23, 2017, around 19:10, the Defendant possessed approximately 5.51g of marijuana in its original form in the above Defendant’s residence.

B. At around August 23, 2017, around 19:10, the Defendant possessed approximately KRW 18.32 g of phiphones on transparent plastic packaging in the E-vehicle operated by the Defendant, parked in the second underground parking lot of the residence of the above Defendant.

[2017 Highest 1137]

On July 15, 2017, at around 19:08, the Defendant decided to purchase 2g of marijuana from L known to G at the specialized sales site of hemp, “H,” and transferred L to Bitcoin equivalent to 3.50,000 won of the bitcoin, which was known to L, to Bitcoin, and then purchased 2g of marijuana from Gitcoin in Gangnam-gu Seoul on July 16, 2017, around 05:00, the Defendant purchased 2g of marijuana from Gitcoin.

Summary of Evidence

[2017Gohap901]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol regarding F;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure, records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Written confirmation of small and medium spoppy inspection, reply to an appraisal request, reply to an appraisal request, reply to an appraisal request, reply to an appraisal request, and a narcotics appraisal report;

1. Screening photographs, photographs of seized articles, photographs of seized articles, photographs taken at the time of search and seizure, photographs taken at the time of voluntary submission, photographic materials taken at the time of voluntary submission, addresses of the suspect's bitcoins, and photographs after

[2017 Highest 1137]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding L;

1. One copy of the notice of search, seizure, and verification to the Institute of Bankruptcy;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(b) (Article 60(1) of the Narcotics Control Act, Article 60(1)3, Article 2 subparag. 7(b) (Article 59(1)7, and Article 3 subparag. 7) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., Articles 61(1)4(a), 3 subparag. 10(a) (Article 61(1) of the Narcotics Control Act, Article 61(1)4(a), and Article 3 subparag. 10(b) (Article 61(1)4(b) and Article 3 subparag. 10(b) of the Narcotics Control Act (Article 60(1) of the Narcotics Control Act,

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.) due to the purchase of marijuana from August 19 to 20, 2017, which is the largest penalty

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Probation and community service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

1. Confiscation;

The main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

[A prosecutor is also seeking forfeiture of one glass pipe (8 mm in length), one small-sized electronic storage (No. 7), and one document (No. 8) used in the course of smoking marijuana seized. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the above evidence No. 4 and No. 7 are the defendant's custody of the articles used, and the defendant appears not to have used or intended to use the articles in the course of each of the crimes in this case. In case of No. 8 of the above evidence, no evidence is found to prove that the defendant used or attempted to use the articles in this case. Accordingly, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have sufficiently proved that the above evidence No. 4, 7, and 9 A constitutes "the articles provided or intended to be provided for the crime in this case".

1. Additional collection:

The proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

[Calculation of Additional Collection] ① Purchase Price of 16.68g 16,714g 16.68g excluding 18.32g philophones seized as described in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the same case among 35g philophones purchased as described in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the same case + (10,000 x (16.68g / 35g x (16.68g / 35g) x less than 16.67g) x (2) 6g 9.49g excluding mariphones seized as described in paragraph (3) of the same case’s judgment of the same case’s holding) + Purchase Price of 4,765,714g x 16.30g x 7007 g 907 g g 16007 g g g 30507 g g g g 20.

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the defendant's defense counsel's assertion

The Defendant provided F with KRW 10 million and purchased approximately 12-13 g of philophones, and there is no purchase of 35 g of philophones. The Defendant purchased philophones through 0, and the Defendant appears to have purchased part of philophones with the purchase fund provided by the Defendant and delivered only the remainder to the Defendant. In this case, the Defendant was bound to engage in direct transactions with F, and as a result, the Defendant purchased a large quantity of philophones that the Defendant could have anticipated.

2. Determination

In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court and the circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, the Defendant purchased 35 g philopon from F, and the Defendant appears to have been fully aware of such circumstances. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable.

A. F consistently stated at an investigative agency that “F purchased 10 million won or more in early April 2017 in order to deliver the phone to the Defendant via the beginning 0 of the beginning, and purchased phiphones, and that F was 10 million won or more in its own money because the phiphones purchased have been identified as a fake. After this detention, the Defendant directly purchased phiphones from the Defendant and requested P to purchase phiphones, and then purchased 35 g of the phiphones in order to purchase phiphones without doubt, and delivered them to the Defendant on April 2017.” As such, F appears to have exercised due care while purchasing phiphones once in the shape of the phiphones purchase, and accordingly, it appears that F was difficult to find the Defendant’s credibility of phiphones in light of the fact that phiphones purchased phiphones with high possibility of thoroughly examining the volume of phiphones, despite having been under investigation into narcotics-related crimes, the Defendant appears to have made an oral statement in light of the above reasons.

B. At the time of police investigation, the Defendant stated that “I did not have much amount when I purchased a philophone from 0 to 0, and I had received a 10 million philoopopon contained in a vinyl package from F. I expressed that F had talked with F to the effect that the phiopon was more than 10 million won,” and that the floopon purchase amount up to 70 to 80,000 won referred to by the Defendant means 12-15 g, namely, 12-15 g, in light of the Defendant’s statement that I would have sufficiently known that the phiopon was more than 70-80,000 won, which is contained in a plastic package. However, the Defendant appears to have been aware that the phiopon was more than 15g in light of the fact that the phiopon was more than 10,000 won, rather than glopon merely because of the fact that the phiopon was more than 15g.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for one year to 45 years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crimes and concurrent crimes: Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flavoring) due to the administration of phiphones;

[Determination of Types 3 [Determination of Types] Simple possession, etc. of Medications for Narcotics (psychotropic items (b) and (c)]

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, 10 months to 2 years of imprisonment

(b) Results according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period from one year to three years);

3. Determination of sentence;

[Unfavorable Circumstances] Crimes related to narcotics are not easy to detect by its nature, and there is a high risk of recidivism, as well as negative impact on society due to their scoppy and toxicity. The Defendant purchased a large quantity of penphones and marijuana over several occasions, and continuously administered or smokeed and possessed the purchased penphones and marijuana. In light of the specific contents of the instant crime and the frequency of the crime, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant.

[I] The Defendant’s mistake from an investigative agency to this court is seriously against the Defendant, and there is no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant crime. The Defendant re-inception of narcotics-related crimes, and the Defendant’s family members are asserting the Defendant’s preemptive action while promising to attract the Defendant to a correct way.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of each of the crimes of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing factors specified in the records and arguments shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Support for judges' organization

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, since the purchase price of marijuana purchased by the Defendant as stated in Paragraph (3) of the case of 2017 Gohap901 is recognized as the cause for 70-80,000 won, the additionally collected amount shall be calculated based on the amount of 700,000 won most favorable to the Defendant, and since each of the Defendant’s crimes of smoking marijuana committed by the Defendant separately, its value shall not be collected.

3) Since the lower limit of the range of recommendations is lower than the lower limit of the statutory applicable sentencing range, the lower limit of the applicable sentencing range is set at the statutory applicable sentencing range.