A penalty of KRW 100,000 shall be collected from the Defendant. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to the sale of Metea c

The summary of the acquittal part in this judgment shall be publicly notified.

【Criminal Power】

On June 27, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment for a violation of the Customs Act in the Suwon District Court's Ansan Branch, and completed the execution of the sentence on October 27 of the same year.

【Criminal Facts】

The defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

On May 25, 2017, at the entrance control room of the underground parking lot of the above C building, the Defendant administered the Meptamin by means of inserting a large amount of mert flapers with water at the one-time injection room, dilution with water, and refining with both arms.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A narcotics appraisal statement (Nos. 17 of evidence lists);

1. A request for appraisal, a report on appraisal and a written appraisal (the No. 23 of the evidence list);

1. Investigation report (attaching photographs of their own country on the suspect's arms);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, etc., and the first prosecutor's examination protocol against the accused;

Application of Statutes

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

Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(b) (Optional to Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Reasons for sentencing under the proviso to Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.;

[Determination of Punishment] Types 3 (Rayb, Item (c) and (c)) of the Act on the Medicationing, Simple Possession, etc. of Narcotics Crimes No. 10 months to 2 years / 10 years

2. Determination of sentence;

In light of the fact that narcotics crimes cause serious hazard to national health and social safety due to their cryptism and toxicity, the statement on the process of obtaining administered cryptopy citizens, etc., the defendant seems not to faithfully cooperate with the investigation, and the fact that the defendant commits the instant crime without being aware of it during the period of repeated crime is disadvantageous.

However, the defendant's punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the favorable circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, etc. when he/she administers a small amount of medicine once, and the fact that he/she acknowledges and reflects the crime, etc.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of this part of the facts charged

At around 14:00 on May 7, 2017, the Defendant, at the entrance of the building C, sold psychotropic drugs, to D, approximately 3.2g of psychotropic drugs, and to promise to receive KRW 1.5 million at the price thereafter.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant consistently denies the crime committed by an investigative agency to the extent that it did not meet D at the time and place indicated in the facts charged and did not sell Mepta, even if there was no Mepta to the date and place indicated in the facts charged.

B. Although there are some statements in D’s investigative agency as direct evidence that correspond to the facts charged and statements in this court, considering the following circumstances acknowledged as evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is difficult to readily believe D’s statements.

1) Around 21:10 on May 8, 2017, 201, D entered into an emergency arrest at the her mother's conference located in the lasan-si, following consultation on possession and medication of mert cancer patients, and seized the mert 3.14g, injection equipment, etc. at that site.

2) On May 10, 2017, D made a statement to the Defendant on May 7, 2017, that he/she purchased the Meptian, which was possessed and administered as above, from the police, at the underground parking lot of the above building, on May 7, 2017. ② On May 15, 2017, D purchased the C building underground parking lot of the building located in Ischeon-si, Leecheon-si. ② On May 8, 2017, she was at the police, at the police, at the end of May 7, 2017, it is reasonable to purchase the Defendant on May 7, 2017. Accordingly, C building 524, a day, the Defendant was coming out of the outside, and the Defendant was asked by the Defendant to purchase the Meptian, and the Defendant was made out on May 17, 2017, and the Defendant was made out on May 17, 2017.

3) However, on July 10, 2017, D appeared as a witness and stated differently from the fact that there was a statement made by the prosecutor to inquire about the authenticity of the protocol prepared by the investigative agency. Since May 5, 2017, D stated that the date on which the Defendant and the telephone conversations were purchased to the Defendant was not on May 7, 2017, but on May 5, 2017, it stated to the same effect in this court.

4) D was an emergency arrest on May 8, 2017, and the date on which D first stated by the police that the Defendant purchased the Meptamine from the Defendant on May 10, 2017. The date on which D first stated by the police that D had purchased the Meptamine from the Defendant is May 10, 2017. The date on which D purchased the Meptamine from the Defendant on May 5, 2017 or on May 7, 2017, as at the time D first made a statement at the police station at the time of the first statement at D during the police station, D could be capable of accurately purchasing the date. Moreover, D was specified from the first police statement to the date on which D was called “Maton”, and it was clearly stated that it was purchased on the day immediately before it was the first day prior to its emergency arrest, and it is difficult to obtain D’s statement from D in this court that it purchased the Defendant without considering that it was a crime.

5) In addition, D was shut down at the police station twice or on the day of purchase, and the Defendant was released from the outside of the room and made a concrete statement to the situation at that time. However, on May 5, 2017, in this court, D asked whether the Defendant was forced to ask the Defendant by telephone, and then called the Defendant to enter the office once, and then called the Defendant again, called the Defendant at the bus terminal, and called the Defendant again at the seat of C, and was unable to find the Defendant upon arrival of the building, but the Defendant was called to get off from the outside of the room, and was asked from the Defendant to get off the bar. The statement at the police station on the day of purchase and the statement at this court from this court are different from the process and circumstances up to the time when D became the Defendant.

6) At the police station during the 20th anniversary of this Act, D asked the Defendant to cooperate in the investigation after being dismissed from committing a crime of narcotics, but the Defendant was aware that the Defendant was not a person related to narcotics, and even until that time, the Defendant did not request the Defendant to request the Meptist to seek information on a drug offender. However, D calls to F to F on May 5, 2015 and calls to F on whether the Defendant would be aware of the fact that there was a person who is not a person related to narcotics, and was anticipated to help him/her to assist him/her, but did not request him/her to seek information on a drug offender. However, D calls to F on May 5, 2015, and calls to F to the effect that it would be F, and made it difficult to request the Defendant to purchase the Mepter from the 20th 5th Meptian. According to the above statements made by D, D’s request to purchase the Mepted 5th Mete.

7) In addition, if according to D's legal statement, in an urgent situation of investigation cooperation, F received a notice from F to request the defendant to provide information about narcotics-related crimes, and asked the defendant to ask for the defendant, and confirmed whether the defendant sought a merptist by telephone, and if it was in such situation, D's statement in this court is difficult to obtain the statement from D, which was immediately called the defendant's underground parking lot where the defendant works, or if it seems that the defendant did not appear, D's request to seek a merpter by telephone, and immediately contact D's statement in this court that the defendant was left in a house because it was not visible.

8) On May 7, 2015, D stated that the police purchased Mepters from the Defendant on May 7, 2015, but it appears that D had changed its statement in accordance with the monetary content by being aware of the fact that there was no telephone call between itself and the Defendant at the latest. However, the Defendant was working to manage the charge at the underground parking lot of the building C, and D had an office and a lodging in the building C, so it can be easily seen even without telephoneing the Defendant, so if D actually purchased Mepters from the Defendant, there is no reason to change its statement in line with the monetary content.

C. It is difficult to view that this part of the facts charged is proven beyond a reasonable doubt solely on the basis of evidence, such as the telephone conversations submitted by the prosecutor.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the verdict of not guilty is publicly announced.