Violation of the Visa Control Act (marijuana)

2. Not less than 49 g of plastic disease (No. 6 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2012tension 553), plastic disease (No. 553 of the OREGOO trademark 39 gram (No. 7 of the evidence No. 2012 pressure 553 of the Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office 2012 pressure 553), JWH-210 (go No. 1 of the proof No. 2005 of the Government Prosecutors' Office 201 pressure 205), JH-122 (Color), 9 g. 5 g. (No. 201 pressure 205 of the Government Prosecutors' Office 201 pressure 205 of the Government Prosecutors' Office 201 pressure 205), 1 parcel of parcel (No. 7 of the defendant's evidence No. 7 of the government prosecutors' office 201 pressure 205);

3. 560,120 won shall be collected from the defendant.

4. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) by importing spices around January 2012 is acquitted.

Even if the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, the Defendant treated psychotropic drugs and marijuana as follows:

1. The crime of smuggling;

(a) Crimes committed on November 201 (Crimes 2012 Gohap1196)

On November 201, 201, the Defendant conspiredd to take part in the crime of smuggling, which sent to Korea by JWH-210, JWH-122(hereinafter referred to as 'Ssphphs', which is a psychotropic drug, at the request of D (D) located in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as 'D') from the U.S. Original Dognas (C, hereinafter referred to as 'C') in the U.S. Original Dognas (hereinafter referred to as ‘D').

C On November 201, 201, after delivery of approximately 4 ions (120 g) ordered by an operator of 'E' from his name who was the operator of 'E', the Defendant, together with C, divided it into 1 ions for packing Nos. 1, and sent it to the International Postal Service at the No.S. post office, and then the said postal item reached the Incheon State's port of supply.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with C and the online web site operators, imported approximately 4 spams.

(b) Crimes committed on December 201, 201 (hereinafter referred to as 201 Gohap376).

On December 14, 2011, the Defendant: (a) conspiredd to import narcotic smuggling approximately 21.6 grams ( approximately 645 grams, JWW-210 grams, JWH-122 grams, approximately 15 grams) from the person under whose name the name of the drug wholesaler located in East-gu, East-gu, F apartment 102 201 and Hungary is not higher than the vice versa; (b) ordered the addressee to import them into the Republic of Korea under the disguised of international special postal item; and (c) ordered the above SPs by using the recipient as the Defendant, as the same two post offices; and (d) on December 19, 201, the international special class postal items concealed by SPS approximately 21.6 grams at Incheon at around 11:00.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with C and the above-mentioned names, imported spam approximately 21.6 temperatures.

2. The possession of spha and marijuana (2012, 376);

At around 14:00 on January 18, 2012, the Defendant, in collusion with C, possessed approximately 92 gp. (including concealment, weight, etc. within two Laos) of sp. sp. sp. 92 g. (including concealment, weight, etc. within two sp. sp. sp. 102 and 201 of the F apartment 10,000.)

3. The use of spices and the crime of smoking marijuana (2012 high-class 376);

(a) Crimes committed while on December 2011, 201;

On December 12, 2011, the Defendant used approximately 0.5g of psychotropic drugs in Vietnam, No. 102, 201, the F apartment 102, 201, and 0.5g of psychotropic drugs in tobacco paper, and used them in a way of spreading the smoke.

(b) Crimes around January 12, 2012;

The Defendant, around 23:00 between January 12, 2012 and around 15, around 23:00, posted 0.5g of the above F apartment No. 102, 201 to a tobacco paper, and smoked in a way that a tobacco paper f.5g of the large narcotic No. 10. 201.

(c) Crimes committed on January 201, 201.

On January 1, 2012, at around 14:0, the Defendant used approximately 0.5g of the F apartment 102 Dong 201, F apartment 201, as a kind of tobacco, in the form of tobacco paper, and used it as a kind of tobacco.

(d) Crimes committed on January 201, 201.

On January 2012, at around 20:30, the Defendant used approximately 0.5g of the F apartment 102 and 201, as a tobacco paper, in Vietnam, for a tobacco paper, and for a smoke.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Statement made by witnesses D in the fourth trial records;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol concerning C;

1. Fourth prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of D;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning G;

1. Records of seizure, list (C and evidence held by A), and records of seizure;

1. One copy of the investigation report (related to the seized and seized articles), investigation report (related to the suspect), report on results of the investigation (related to the suspect's suspicion), report on the results of the request for appraisal, report on the results of appraisal, and report on the results of appraisal, arrest of the suspect, report on the results of the investigation, investigation, report on the results of analysis, narcotics appraisal, notification on the results of the appraisal, appraisal report, report on the results of the investigation, report on the investigation (the recovery of PC and soft data used by the suspect), data recovery, CD, examination report, investigation report (the measurement and attachment of 3.3g of the net quantity of the seized articles), one copy of the photograph of the seized articles and the net quantity measurement report, notification on the results of the appraisal of narcotics (the notification of the results of the appraisal of narcotics, etc.) (the notification on the results of the appraisal request, report on the results of appraisal request, report on the suspect's gathering, report on the results of the investigation, report on the results of the analysis, report on narcotics appraisal, etc., report on the suspect's and contents expansion of the suspect's and contents;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 58(1)3, 3 subparag. 6, and 2 subparag. 4 (a) of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (amended by Act No. 10786, Jun. 7, 2011; hereinafter the same) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10786, Jun. 7, 201); Articles 61(1)7 and 4(1) of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.; Articles 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 59(1)6 and 3 subparag. 6, and 2 subparag. 4 (a) of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (amended by Act No. 10786, Jun. 7, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply); Articles 61(1)8 and 33 subparag. 11 of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (amended by Imprisonment or Imprisonment with prison labor)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37(former part), 38(1)2 and 50(a) of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in Article 1(b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes with punishment) on the grounds of a spath frequency as stated in paragraph (b) of the same Article)

1. Confiscation;

Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

1. Additional collection:

The proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (based on the calculation of the amount of additional collection: USD 480 in the amount of Spha spha 480 in the judgment + The amount of KRW 3-A, C, and spha 1.5g in the judgment + the amount of KRW 9,000 in the government area of the spha 1.5g in the judgment + the amount of KRW 2,000 in the government area of the mariju 0.5g in the judgment, and the exchange rate at the time of sentence

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. As to the spion spiones

A. Defendant’s assertion

There has not been a conspiracy with C with regard to the smuggling of Sspha.

B. Determination

In full view of the credibility of the statement made by C to the effect that the Defendant and the Defendant conspired as seen below, as well as other circumstances acknowledged by each of the evidence in the judgment, the Defendant is recognized to have sected in collusion with C as facts constituting the crime in the judgment.

1) C’s statement

A) The most important evidence consistent with the criminal facts stated in the judgment that the Defendant conspired with C that he/she was smuggling over two times is C’s statement. C, around March 2012, at the time of the first investigation by an investigative agency, at the time of the first investigation, both the Defendant and the Defendant denied the Switzerland import of the Switzerland, the Defendant, like the Defendant, consulted with a state appointed defense counsel, and subsequently, at around May 2012, the Defendant led to the confession of his/her Switzerland import crime and made a concrete statement on his/her conspiracy with the Defendant.

C At the investigation agency, when ordering SPS first, the Defendant was sealed in the way that he received a sentence or the Defendant in the United States and sent it again to the Republic of Korea without Korea. After retirement, the Defendant returned to the United States, and the Defendant sold SPS to the Republic of Korea, and the Defendant expressed that he would return money if he sells SPS to the Republic of Korea. Of November 201, 201, the Defendant conspired with the Defendant to send SPS to the Republic of Korea. After entering the Republic of Korea, the Defendant and D gave 10 gram 40 gram 10 gram 10 gram 200,000, the Defendant and D gave 10 gram 10 gram 20,000,000 to the Defendant and D’s statement to the effect that he received SPS from SPS 30 gram 40 gram gram 201.

B) The above C’s statement is highly reliable in light of the following circumstances.

① Since C made a confession of all matters related to his criminal punishment, and made a concrete statement about the facts that the investigative agency had failed to grasp at that time, C’s statement is not deemed to be a accomplice in order to reduce his responsibility.

② The C’s statement is specifically and consistently stated as to the major facts constituting the crime, such as the method of ordering Switzerland’s order, the ordered volume and price, the background leading to the receipt of Switzerland, the person who sold ices by dividing the sealed ices, and the method and degree of the Defendant’s participation in the Switzerland import.

③ The C’s statement is consistent with the objective evidence, such as G’s statement and H text dialogue screen.

C) On May 1, 2012, May 10, 2012, May 10, 2012, May 11, 2012, and May 22, 2012, each protocol of examination of the prosecution as to the interrogation of the defendant as to the interrogation of the defendant as of May 22, 2012, the defendant consented to the fourth trial and was examined as evidence. However, in the case of 2012 Gohap196, the defendant consented to the examination of the suspect as to the interrogation of the defendant as to the above interrogation of the prosecutor as to the defendant as to the defendant's interrogation of the defendant as to the defendant's interrogation of the defendant's interrogation of the defendant as to the defendant's interrogation of the defendant's interrogation of the defendant as to the defendant's interrogation of the defendant as to the defendant's interrogation of the defendant's interrogation of the defendant as to the defendant's interrogation of the defendant's interrogation of the defendant as to C, the above interrogation of the suspect's interrogation of the defendant as to the defendant's interrogation of the defendant.

① In the examination of the witness against the Defendant, the examination was conducted on the grounds that the Defendant entered the Republic of Korea as C, and on November 22, 201, on the facts related to the crime set forth in Paragraph (a) of Article 1 as indicated in the judgment, including the background leading up to the discovery of mail by the Dongducheon post office and the contents of mail.

② In the examination of witnesses D on the fourth trial date, the examination was conducted on whether the Defendant and C attempted to sell the spices by smuggling, and on November 201, the examination was conducted on the grounds that the mail was found to the same spice post office and the contents of the mail, etc. as indicated in the judgment No. 1 (A).

2) Other circumstances

According to the following circumstances admitted by each evidence of the ruling, the defendant seems to have actively participated in the case of paragraph (1) of the ruling, not only simply selling SPS which C has been pushedly engaged in, but also recognizing C's smuggling.

(1) In the case of an international postal item containing the radio frequency under Paragraph (1) of Paragraph (1) of the judgment, the sender received the international postal item after obtaining the confirmation that the name of the defendant was stated in the sender, and as the addressee was not accurately indicated, D was not found.

② In the case of an international postal item containing the radio wave as set forth in paragraph (1)(b) of the judgment, the addressee was written as the Defendant, and the Defendant actually received it directly.

2. As to the holding of a radio wave:

A. Defendant’s assertion

Sphpha 92gs is not the defendant but the defendant, and there is no sales purpose.

B. Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances admitted by each evidence of the ruling, it can be recognized that the defendant possessed approximately 92 grams for the purpose of sale. The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

① At around 14:00 on January 18, 2012, the Defendant, at the time of executing a warrant of arrest against C, was seized by an investigative agency when he/she attempted to conceal one of the leno plastic bottles in which spams are contained at retail of the Defendant’s arms.

② The other Orle Plast C containing the above temporary border was discovered and seized in the room of the defendant. While the defendant asserted that one Orle Plast was not the room of the defendant, C and D living together with the defendant stated that the above room was used by the defendant, and even based on the defendant's statement, the situation of the defendant was in the room. Thus, the above one of Orle Plast C appears to have been discovered in the room of the defendant.

③ In order to meet the expenses that the Defendant returned to the United States, at the investigative agency, returned to USD 1,00 the sum of USD 500 per 50 per divesian 4 diseases, which included about 30 grams of the Sphs 30 grams, and the Defendant paid to the Defendant, thereby raising the amount of money on the market and changing the remainder to B. However, the Defendant sold the degree of half dives and kept the remainder in the house without selling the degree of half dives of the other one.”

(4) The Defendant, together with C, entered the Republic of Korea to import and sell SPSs into the Republic of Korea, and imported SPSs in two times as seen earlier, together with C.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 45 years; and

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) The crime of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flavoring) by spawding waterways;

[Determination of Type] 2 Type 2 (the crime under Article 58 (1) 1 through 4, 6, and 7 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which is not less than 5 million won but less than 50 million won in value of narcotics)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] 5 years to 8 years (Basic Area)

(b) A crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fevour) due to possession for the purpose of selling ices

[Determination of Type] Trade Mediation, etc. for Narcotics Form 3 (Narcotic drugs, flag (Ga).)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Four to Seven years of imprisonment (Basic Area)

(c) Crimes of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. ( natives) due to the use of ices;

[Determination of Type] 4 Medication, simple possession, etc. of narcotics (narcotics, flappy (a).)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] One year to Three years (Basic Area) imprisonment

(d) Crimes of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.;

[Determination of Types] 2 Medications (marijus, perfumes, d. items (e) and (e), etc.) for the medication of narcotics

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment from 8 months to 1 year and 6 months (Basic Area)

(e) Application of standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for 5 years to 12 years and 6 months (the sum of 1/2 of the upper limit of the sentence scope of crimes of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to the possession of spha for the purpose of selling spha in the upper limit of the sentence scope of crimes of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence), and 1/3 of the upper limit of the sentence scope of the crimes of violation of the Act on

3. Determination of sentence: Five years of imprisonment; and

The Defendant, together with C, entered the Republic of Korea to import and sell SPS into the Republic of Korea and imported SPS two times with C, and imported SPS was considerable in quantity, and some of them possessed or used for the purpose of sale. Such narcotics crimes are highly likely to have a serious adverse effect on society as a whole. Nevertheless, the Defendant, denying the entire crime of SPS and tried to escape from liability to other accomplices, and to escape from liability for his criminal act while going through a trial, and even if he was arrested by an investigative agency during the crime of smuggling import, it is inevitable to punish the criminal act corresponding thereto.

However, the fact that the defendant does not seem to have led the crime of smuggling import is an element favorable to the defendant.

In addition, it is decided as ordered by taking into account the circumstances in which the defendant participated in the crime, the age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged (2012 Gohap196);

On January 2012, the Defendant conspiredd to seal C and SPS in the above manner, and issued an order for SPS approximately 20 SPS (C, approximately 600g) to the Department of J (J, hereinafter referred to as the "J") (J, hereinafter referred to as the "J"), which is the wife of the F apartment 102 Dong 201 and 201, the delivery office and the receiver of the F apartment 102 Dong 201 and hereinafter referred to as the "E"). On January 201, the international specialty-type mail concealed about 20 SPS arrived at the Incheon State's provision after approximately a week.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with C and the online web site operator, imported approximately 20 Sphas in collusion.

2. Determination

A co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the implementation of a crime through functional control over a criminal act based on the intent of co-processing and the intent of co-processing. As such, the intent of co-processing is insufficient to recognize and not to restrain another person’s criminal act, and it is deemed that a functional control over a criminal act through an essential contribution to the crime exists (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1274, Apr. 10, 2008; 2007Do6075, Nov. 15, 2007).

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, in relation to this part of the facts charged by the prosecutor, C orders the Switzerland under the name of the wifeJ, and C received Switzerland, and C distributed Switzerland to the seller of Switzerland, but the Defendant did not bring about Switzerland at the time of Switzerland since there was no remaining Switzerland, and thereafter, C returned to 500 dollars per C in order to raise the Defendant’s expenses for return to the U.S., and distributed Switzerland again to the Defendant at 500 US dollars per C, and the Defendant was seized as stated in paragraph (2) above.

Although the defendant entered Korea to sell SPS together with C, and actively participated in C’s SPS crime as indicated in paragraph (1) of the ruling, considering the above facts of recognition, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant has functional control over this part of the facts charged, such as recognizing the order or process of SPS and sharing part of the act.

3. Conclusion

This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

Judges Park Jong-soo

Judges Kim Jae-nam