[향정신성의약품관리법위반][공1997.4.1.(31),1034]
[1] Whether a crime of owning psychotropic drugs is established separately from the crime of selling and selling psychotropic drugs where a purchased psychotropic drugs continues to be held (affirmative with qualification)
[2] The case holding that if a psychotropic drug purchased for the purpose of resale was possessed for 20 days, its ownership constitutes a crime separate from the crime of sale and purchase of psychotropic drugs
[1] Where a person continues to own, without disposing of the purchased psychotropic drugs, the ownership of the psychotropic drugs constitutes a crime of owning psychotropic drugs separate from the crime of selling and selling psychotropic drugs, unless it is judged that the ownership and the trading act are in an indivisible relationship, or that such act was conducted temporarily as a result of a penmatic result accompanying the trade act.
[2] The case reversing the judgment below which acquitted a person on the act of owning the psychotropic drugs purchased for the purpose of resale, on the ground that the act of owning them for 20 days in order to sell them to others, cannot be evaluated as an indivisible result, and rather constitutes an act of independent ownership, independent from the act of purchase under social norms, and thus constitutes an act of independent ownership
[1] Article 42(1) of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act / [2] Article 42(1) of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Do1211 delivered on January 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 590), Supreme Court Decision 90Do543 delivered on July 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 1838), Supreme Court Decision 95Do869 delivered on July 28, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3033)
Defendant 1 and one other
Prosecutor
Attorney Kim Jung-chul
Seoul High Court Decision 96No1365 delivered on October 24, 1996
The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants regarding the crime of psychotropic drug ownership is reversed. This part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on April 15, 1996, the court below rendered a judgment of not guilty as to the above possession on the ground that the defendants, among the facts charged in this case, purchased a psychotropic drug 1kg, from the Incheon National University on April 15, 1996, in collusion with other persons than psychotropic drug handler and purchased a psychotropic drug 1kg on or around April 22, 1996, at around 16:30 of the same month, he received a delivery of 1,012gh from the mutual scam from the mutual scams in the vicinity of the Nam-gu Busan National Port Office located in Nam-gu, Busan to sell it to other persons and kept it for a considerable period of time necessary for selling it, and kept it in custody for a considerable period of time to sell it to other persons, and as such, the act of purchasing it is an indivisible result and inevitably accompanied by a separate crime.
However, if the purchased psychotropic drugs continue to be owned without disposal, it shall be deemed that the possession of psychotropic drugs constitutes a crime of ownership of psychotropic drugs, instead of absorbing them into sale and purchase, unless it is judged that their possession and sale are in an indivisible relationship, or that their possession and sale are conducted temporarily as a result of a written result accompanying the sale and purchase act, or that such possession and sale constitute a crime of ownership of psychotropic drugs separate from the crime of sale and purchase of psychotropic drugs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do543, Jul. 27, 1990; 95Do869, Jul. 28
In light of the above legal principles, the defendants' act of purchasing paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper paper.
Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below that found the Defendants not guilty is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)