A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Seized evidence No. 3 shall be confiscated.

853,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flag) due to the provision and medication of a Russian shall be acquitted respectively.

The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) shall be too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

Before making decisions on the grounds for appeal, this paper will examine ex officio.

When the confession of a defendant is the only evidence against him/her, it shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt (Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act). In cases where a defendant is found guilty on the sole ground of his/her confession without any supporting evidence, it shall be deemed that there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7835, Nov. 29, 2007, etc.). Meanwhile, since substantive concurrent crimes are the crimes of substantial number, it is necessary to establish supporting evidence for each crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10937, Feb. 14, 2008, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles, since each of the facts charged in the instant case [2017 Highest 218] is a substantive concurrent crime, all of the facts charged are concurrent crimes, the charges can be found guilty only if there is reinforced evidence as to each of the facts charged.

[Attachment] The lower court held that there is no evidence supporting the Defendant’s confession as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (hereinafter “the Act”), among the facts charged, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record: (a) the Defendant’s legal statement, (b) the prosecutor’s statement against Nonindicted Party 1; (c) the investigation report (Attachment to the details of ○○ transaction); (d) the details of the criminal investigation; (e) the seizure protocol; (v) the list of seized articles; (v) the statement of request for appraisal; and (vi) the statement of narcotics, etc., the narcotics appraisal report (the calculation report) among the facts charged.

A. Although Nonindicted Party 1 stated that the prosecution ordered the Defendant to 1,00 U.S. 1,00 items, it cannot be deemed that Nonindicted Party 1’s above statement constitutes reinforced evidence for each of the crimes committed by the Defendant in light of the following: (a) Nonindicted Party 1’s first statement was made at the investigative agency about 40 times at the time when the Defendant first sawd 1,000 items; (b) later, Nonindicted Party 1’s statement that Nonindicted Party 2 provided part of the Russia to Nonindicted Party 2 during September 2016, stating that the Defendant had been administered over 25 times during the period and frequency of medication; and (c) Nonindicted Party 1’s confession was unclear.

B. According to the internal investigation report (the digital analysis data of Nonindicted Party 1’s mobile phone), Nonindicted Party 2’s transmission to Nonindicted Party 1 on February 1, 2017, it cannot be deemed that the aforementioned evidence constitutes reinforced evidence for each of the crimes committed by the Defendant in light of the following: (a) it is recognized that Nonindicted Party 2 sent the message “the Defendant’s test that was obtained at least one hundreds of the openings of the openings of the openings of the openings.”

Therefore, even if there is no proof of a crime, the part of the judgment of the court below which found the guilty guilty is erroneous in violation of Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and as long as the above part and the remaining crimes are treated as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and sentenced to a single punishment, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground that the above ground for ex officio reversal exists, and it is again decided as follows.

Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Narcotics Control Act (the receipt and medication of a scopon), 61(1)5, 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(d) of the Narcotics Control Act (the receipt and delivery of a scopon), 61(1)4(a) and (b), 3 subparag. 10 (the possession of a scopon and smoking of a scopon), 3 subparag. 10 (the possession of a scopon and smoking of a scopon), and each choice of imprisonment with prison labor.

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

The main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

1. Additional collection:

The proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act (the crime of giving and receiving phiphonephones, 350,000 won, and 500,000 won, and 3,000 won, total of 853,00 won, and total of 853,00 won, shall be collected).

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant include the fact that the defendant recognized the facts charged in this case and divided his mistake, and that the defendant actively cooperates with the investigation agency's arrest of a narcotics offender and contributed to arresting a narcotics offender are favorable to the defendant.

In addition to the above circumstances, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstances leading to the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime of this case shall be determined as ordered in consideration of various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant case.

(a) A person who commits an offense provided by Russia;

1) At around 17:00 on September 2016, the Defendant issued a letter bag containing approximately KRW 130,00,000, which was parked on the street in front of △△△dong-dong (vehicle registration number omitted) to the Defendant’s (vehicle registration number omitted) and Nonindicted 2 received KRW 50,00 from Nonindicted 2 as oil value and issued a letter bag containing approximately KRW 130.

2) At around 15:00 on September 2016, the Defendant issued a letter bag containing approximately KRW 50,00 in a smoking room located in the said game room, and KRW 50,00 in a smoking room, including bathing expenses, to Nonindicted 2, who received approximately KRW 130,00,00 from the Plaintiff and received approximately KRW 130.

3) On October 15, 2016, the Defendant, within the smoking room located in the said game room, issued to Nonindicted Party 2 a letter bag containing approximately KRW 130 free of charge.

Accordingly, even though the defendant is not a person handling narcotics, the defendant provided the psychotropic drugs to Nonindicted 2 three times.

(b) Medication medication;

1) The Defendant, at the same time and place as the foregoing paragraph (1) of the A, recovered approximately KRW 25 as water.

2) On November 15:00 in order of November 2016, the Defendant, who was parked in front of the performance place shop in △△-dong, △△-si, △△-si, in the front of the Defendant’s foregoing performance place shop in △△-dong, △△-si, △△-si, was taking away together with water of approximately 25

Accordingly, even though the defendant is not a person handling narcotics, the defendant administered the psychotropic drugs in two times.

2. Determination

This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime for the same reasons as the above "2. Official Judgment", and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Jeong Sung (Presiding Judge)