logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018.12.27 2018도15905
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In the event that the seized material remains or the seized material is already discarded pursuant to Articles 130(2), 130(3) and 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act at the time the judgment was rendered, the court may not pronounce the confiscation of the material (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4182, Jun. 14, 2012). If the collection of narcotics under the Narcotics Control Act was fully or partially confiscated from the owner or the last holder of the narcotics, etc., the same applies to the forfeiture of the narcotics, etc., in relation to other persons, and thus, the value of the confiscated narcotics cannot be collected from other handlers (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2819, Jun. 11, 2009). 2. The lower court held that the Defendant held a local mental medicine and delivered 30g glopon with 100,000 won and 100g glopon, one of them without consideration.

After the judgment, it confiscated 1.19g philophones seized by applying Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act, while additionally collecting 600,000 won for purchase of 1.24g philophones and 100,000 won for 1.24g philophones, which are equivalent to the market price of 0.03g philophones.

3. However, according to the record, the seized Handphone 1.19g can be known that it was discarded after appraisal at the investigation stage. Thus, it cannot be subject to confiscation.

In addition, as long as the defendant forfeits 1.19g of philophones purchased, its value should be collected only for the portion administered 0.05g, with the exception of the above confiscated part.

However, the lower court, without considering the discarded part, confiscated all of the seized 1.19g philophones, and additionally collected the total value of the philophones handled by the Defendant.

Such measures by the court below are erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles on confiscation and collection as stipulated in Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act.

arrow