마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The judgment below
The conviction part is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal
A. Considering the fact that the method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court has an essential difference between the first instance court and the appellate court, and the purport of the substantial direct examination principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or there are exceptional circumstances where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is remarkably unfair in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, the appellate court shall not reverse the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of
In particular, in the case of evidence supporting the facts charged, the first instance court, which directly observed the witness’s appearance and attitude in the witness’s statement while proceeding the examination of the witness, may not admit the credibility of the witness’s statement, should be sufficient and acceptable to reject the first instance court’s judgment rejecting the credibility of the witness’s statement, if the appellate court intends to determine that the credibility of the witness’s statement can be acknowledged by following the witness’s statement.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994 Decided November 24, 2006, etc.). B.
The record reveals the following circumstances.
(1) The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) the Defendant traded F and Mambacos (one philophone; hereinafter “philophone”) four times from September 16, 2012 to November 8, 2012; and (b) together with M, a list of crimes in the attached Form of the lower judgment.