In case where the narcotics control team members have purchased narcotics from a criminal on the ground of information source, whether the crime such as the sale and purchase of narcotics by the seller is established, and whether the procedure of prosecution is defective in this regard

In the event that a narcotics supervisor purchases narcotics from an offender on the ground of his/her information source, the act of trading narcotics by the offender shall not be deemed a crime unless the information source causes the offender who has no intention to sell the narcotics to reduce the crime of selling the narcotics, nor shall it be deemed that there is any defect in the procedure for filing a prosecution or the right to institute a prosecution therefor.

Article 60 of the Narcotics Act, Articles 246 and 307 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (75 Gohap1070)

All appeals by the defendant, etc. are dismissed.

One hundred and fifty days of detention days prior to the rendering of a judgment in the trial shall be included in the punishment of the original court against the accused, etc.

Defendant 1’s gist of Defendant 1’s appeal is as follows: (a) the first point was that: (a) the Plaintiff died from a firm that had been operating only one member at the Government of the Gyeonggi-si; (b) around that time, the Defendant, who was in Seoul, did not know that the drug was left in his house; (c) on December 75, Defendant 3, who opened one member at the above hospital run by the Network Department, sought a small amount of flat for treatment of flat and flat; (d) the Defendant discovered a small amount of flatal drugs, and delivered a small amount of flatal quantity free of charge to Defendant 3, etc.; and (b) the lower court did not hold or deliver flatal drugs for sale purposes or delivery of flatal drugs to Defendant 1, etc.; and (b) the lower court determined that it was unlawful for Defendant 1’s duty of seizure and delivery of flatal drugs to Defendant 1 as evidence by means of so-called vessel investigation.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 3 is as follows: first, the defendant delivered the drug produced by Co-Defendant 1 to Nonindicted 1 through Defendant 4, and the non-indicted 1 knew that the drug was "brue", and it became known that the drug was a drug only after that time (the previous drug was known to him) was known that the drug was a drug (the previous drug was known to him). Since the court below, without the intention of the sale of the paper for the purpose of sale, made the defendant's drug possession and delivery as a crime of selling, it was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that could affect the judgment, and second, the judgment of the court below is unfair because the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too excessive.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2’s defense counsel is as follows: (a) the Defendant, as well as Co-Defendant 1, Defendant 3, and any other person were given and delivered a large quantity of narcotics for treatment without the purpose of sale; (b) the Defendant did not have any evidence that he possessed them for the purpose of sale (the evidence that he possessed them for the purpose of sale cannot be found at all).

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, and second, the judgment of the court below is improper because it is too unreasonable in light of the reasons such as the fact that the judgment of the court below against the defendant was made particularly by the so-called naval investigation.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 4’s defense counsel (Non-Indicted 2) is as follows: first, the Defendant introduced Co-Defendant 3 to Non-Indicted 1; second, although the Defendant did not participate in the act of selling narcotics, the lower court recognized the Defendant as a joint principal offender for the purpose of selling narcotics; second, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence; second, Non-Indicted 1’s investigation into the so-called naval investigation conducted by Non-Indicted 1, which is the information of the Narcotics Control Group; second, the lower court’s judgment based on the testimony of Non-Indicted 1, which is not admissible as evidence, has a weak evidence; second, the judgment of the lower court and Non-Indicted 3’s grounds for appeal against the Defendant is unreasonable because the amount of the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the first point of appeal by the defendant 3 and 1 and the defendant's attorney's first point of appeal (the point of fact-finding, etc.) is examined. In light of the records of this case, the first point of appeal by the court below is examined. In light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the first point of appeal by the defendant, etc., the facts constituting the principal offense by the defendant, etc. decided by the court below can be fully recognized (it is clear that the seizure records prepared by the judicial police officer's assertion of defense counsel or the statement of the non-indicted 1 by the defendant 4's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense attorney's defense counsel's defense counsel'

Next, in the case of Defendant 1 and Defendant 4's defense counsel's appeal, it cannot be seen that the so-called crime such as the sale of narcotics by the Defendant, etc. does not constitute a so-called crime, or there is any defect in the procedure of prosecution or authority to prosecute (the same investigation act is a separate criticism about it), as alleged above, if the Information Center member purchased the narcotics on the ground of Non-Party 1 (it is evident that Non-Party 1 is the Information Center of Narcotics Investigation). However, even though there is no intention to commit the sale of narcotics to the Defendant, etc., even though there is no suspicion about Non-Party 1's initial intent to commit the sale of narcotics in advance, it cannot be seen that the above fact alone does not constitute a so-called crime, such as the sale of narcotics by the Defendant, etc., or there is any defect in the procedure of prosecution or authority to prosecute (the act of investigation as mentioned above is a separate criticism about it).

Then, examining the various circumstances under which the court below has legally investigated the motive, means, result, degree of damage, age of the defendant, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the crime, etc., even in consideration of the circumstances asserted by the defendant 1, 3 and his defense counsel, etc., it is clear that the determination of the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant, etc. is reasonable and unreasonable, and therefore, the grounds for appeal on the unfair sentencing of the defendant, etc. and his defense counsel, etc. are all unacceptable.

Therefore, each appeal by the defendant, etc. is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act, 150 days of detention prior to the imposition of judgment in the trial shall be included in the sentence of the court below against the defendant, etc., and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Limited Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)