마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
All the judgment below is reversed.
As a result of the sale of psychotropic drugs in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence of the court below (the punishment of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) at the time of the market, the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. at the time of the market, the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. at the time of the market, the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. at the time of the market, the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. at the time of the market, the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. at the time
2. An ex officio judgment [as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by possession of psychotropic drugs in Article 1(a) of the Decree on the Control of Narcotics, etc.] refers to the act of maintaining control of psychotropic drugs in a state where one can control them, and thus, the crime of holding psychotropic drugs is so-called continuing crime which is assessed as one crime from the commencement of possession until the completion of possession.
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do1741 delivered on September 3, 199). However, the court below held that the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by possession of a psychotropicphone (hereinafter “conphone”) is one of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, on the premise that the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. was completed at the time of commencement of possession of a psychotropic drug-related psychotropic drug-related mail (hereinafter “conphone”).
Ultimately, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flag) and concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
In addition, the court below held that the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to the possession of a philopon was caused by the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flag) due to the purchase of philopon and the violation of the Act on the Control of