마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On August 2017, the summary of the facts charged: (a) on the first night on August 2017, the Defendant, at the office of the Defendant of the Defendant of the Busan Jin-gu B building C, Busan High-gu, the Defendant put the mecopic volume into a glass pipe; (b) heated the mecopic volume into a mecopic pipe, which is a local mental medicine; and (c) discharged the mecopic through a glass hospital containing water; and (d) administered mecopon
2. The administration, as described in the facts charged in the Defendant’s assertion, was administered without gathering that the administration was a fact or a philophone ( intentional denial); 3. Determination on the part of the Defendant
A. The burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge sure that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine the defendant as the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). (b) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the fact that the defendant administered phiphones in the same manner as the facts charged is recognized.
In addition, the defendant administered philophones by using philophones in the administration of philophones, the form of philophones, physical reaction due to the use of philophones, and the defendant himself.
In light of the number of times recognized (2 times), at least the date stated in the facts charged of the instant case, the fact that the Defendant was aware of the administration of philophones.
However, in full view of the following circumstances, there is a doubt that the defendant could not know that he inhaled materials are philophones, and such suspicion is also reasonable.
Ultimately, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone that the defendant had the intention to administer philophones.
The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.