logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 서부지원 2019.09.26 2019고합114
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant is a trainee in the language of Vietnam National University B.

1. On March 4, 2019, the Defendant ordered D to sell narcotics, etc. to Vietnames in the neighboring area, using a chranchissen, in a chronic dormitory of B University Lynam located in Sinpo City, B, as the base for the mountain area. On March 6, 2019, around March 6, 2019, the Defendant received approximately 2g of the synthetic marijuana sent by D from the instant dormitory, and remitted KRW 200,000 to a bank account (F) in the name of “E” designated by D.

Accordingly, even if the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, the Defendant traded synthetic marijuana containing the psychotropic drugs JWH-018 and the AMB-FUINAA composition.

2. The Defendant, from March 22, 2019 to the following day, smoked on a tobacco paper among several occasions, approximately 2g of the synthetic marijuana purchased at the head of her natives located in a building number not exceeding Daegu.

Accordingly, even if the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, the Defendant smoked and used synthetic marijuana containing the psychotropic drugs JWH-018 and its similar body.

Judgment

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion did not know that smoking was synthetic marijuana after purchasing from D. Thus, there was no intention to trade and use psychotropic drugs.

2. In a criminal trial for a judgment, the facts constituting an offense must be based on the evidence, and the degree of proof should reach the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and the prosecutor is responsible for such a proof. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of guilt.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do13552, Jan. 12, 2012).

As shown in the facts charged of this case, the prosecution and the police of the defendant submitted by the prosecutor respectively.

arrow