마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, the point of purchase of Metepia and July 4, 2014 respectively.
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is not a person handling narcotics.
From October 6, 2014 to October 15, 2014, the Defendant administered a large amount of mert ambamins by an indeption method at the Seoul, Gyeonggi, and Chungcheongnam-Nam et al.
Summary of Evidence
1. Each request for appraisal (which shall be submitted for 284 pages of investigation records, and after prosecution);
1. Application of each investigation report (210,265 pages of investigation records) Acts and subordinate statutes;
1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant under Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Establishment of Relevant Acts and the Management of Narcotics, Etc., concerning facts constituting an offense
1. The summary of the argument is that the facts charged do not specify the date, place, method, etc. of the crime, thereby hindering the defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense, and thus, the judgment dismissing the public prosecution should be pronounced.
2. The facts charged should be stated clearly by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right of defense. As such, it is sufficient that the facts charged are stated to the extent that the facts constituting the elements of a crime can be identified by comprehensively considering these elements, and even if the date, time, place, method, etc. of a crime are not explicitly stated in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, and if it is inevitable in light of the nature of the facts charged, and it does not interfere with the defendant’s exercise of his/her right of defense, the contents
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2694 Decided June 14, 2007, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4854 Decided July 24, 2008, etc.). In the instant case, the health unit and the prosecutor discharge the psychotropic drugs from the date of gathering urine from the training reaction of Mepta, a psychotropic drug, and the date of taking urines after administration.