[2] The case affirming the judgment below which acquitted a person of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. on the ground that there is no legitimate evidence to acknowledge that the person was "storage" for medication or other purposes

[2] The case holding that the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the charge of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. on the ground that there is no legitimate evidence to acknowledge that the defendant had been in custody for medication or for other purposes, it cannot be concluded that the seizure and search of the defendant's lodging house conducted by the assistant judicial police officer after about three hours from the time of emergency arrest is illegal measures without a warrant, but the form of the seized material, such as injection, submitted as evidence, has been changed at will by the investigative agency after seizure, and even according to the appraisal result, it is acceptable to view that there is no sufficient quantity of the Mesca as long as the existence of the Mesca has not been verified as being kept.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the administration of Mesa ambamins

The court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is recognized that the defendant was arrested in a state of Mestopian administration, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant administered Mestopian administration. The judgment below is just in accordance with the reasonable free evaluation by the judge of the fact-finding court, and there is no violation of logical and empirical rules as otherwise alleged in the ground

The Prosecutor’s ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

2. As to the ground of appeal as to the custody of Mesatopists

The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that there is no legitimate evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant kept the Mesacam for medication or for other purposes, on the ground that this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no evidence of crime.

According to Articles 217(1), 200-3, and 200-4(1) of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8496, Jun. 1, 2007; hereinafter the same) that was enforced at the time of the search and seizure of this case, a public prosecutor or a judicial police officer may seize, search, or inspect articles owned, possessed, or kept by a person eligible for emergency arrest without a warrant only within 48 hours from the time of arresting the suspect. Meanwhile, according to Articles 219, 115(1) main sentence and 196(2) of the former Criminal Procedure Act; Article 2 of the Rules on the Duties of Judicial Police Officers, etc., a public prosecutor or judicial police officer may assist with necessary investigation, such as search and seizure, under the direction of a public prosecutor or judicial police officer.

In full view of the circumstances at the time of emergency arrest, seizure and search indicated in the provisions of such statutes and the record, it cannot be readily concluded that the instant search and seizure conducted by the judicial police officer after about three hours from the time of emergency arrest is an unlawful measure without a warrant.

However, as shown in the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the judgment below holding that there is insufficient evidence to prove the crime of this part of the facts charged in light of the following: (a) the seizure of the seized article presented as evidence of this part of the facts charged was conducted at will by an investigative agency after the seizure; and (b) even according to the result of the appraisal, the existence of a considerable amount of Mesphere is not verified; and (c) the conclusion that

Ultimately, the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)