마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) can be acknowledged that the Defendant received Metepha as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.
2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below
A. No person, other than the narcotics handler of the facts charged of the instant case, shall possess, possess, use, transport, manage, import, export, manufacture, prepare, administer, administer, deliver, sell, arrange for the trade of, or provide narcotics or psychotropic drugs.
Nevertheless, on February 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) purchased a large amount of cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp
B. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the instant facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the facts charged were true without reasonable doubt, and that there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
A bus operated between L and H is not transported as a cross-city bus with a license for a high-speed bus service, but it is not a transport invoice because the bus manager personally receives a request from the client.
Nevertheless, there is no evidence of whether telephone conversations between the defendant and bus engineer was made between the defendant and the bus engineer, whether the bus engineer delivered the goods to the defendant, and how the bus engineer paid the transportation cost to the bus engineer.
Defendant.