마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding the facts and the legal principles, the Defendant did not intend to import a secret with his name or influence, and received the said mail as his own without knowing whether he had to leave it in an international special mail. Nevertheless, the judgment below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.
B. Even if the court below found an unfair conviction of sentencing, the sentence imposed by the court below (three years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is not a narcotics handler as prescribed by the Narcotics Control Act. However, the Defendant: (a) was a person who resides in the place below the Thailand; and (b) a person whose name is infinite, who is a finite drug, sent to the Republic of Korea; and (c) the Defendant conspired to receive a smuggling imported from the Republic of Korea; and (d) the Defendant’s name was concealed in the place below the Thailand around September 2016 at the place below the Thailand of Thailand of Thailand of 202; and (d) sent the addressee to the Republic of Korea using an international special grade mail; and (d) sent the same to the Republic of Korea on September 24, 2016 through the Incheon Customs Office of Incheon on the International Postal Items (hereinafter “the instant postal items”).
Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with a name-free person, imported 202 well-known drugs, including Mespatha, which is a local mental medicine.
B. The lower court determined that: (a) although the Defendant stated the name of the addressee of the instant postal item as “D” different from that of the Defendant, the Defendant received the instant postal item from the guard as the addressee; (b) the Defendant did not accurately confirm the addressee’s name; and (c) the Defendant was the addressee.