logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.10.11 2017고합121
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

The evidence of No. 11, No. 14 through 29, which was seized, are classified from the defendant.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

On May 2015, the Defendant: (a) first avoided a psychotropic drug purchased from a person without his/her name and from a person with no name (i.e., “her name”; hereinafter “her name”; hereinafter referred to as “herb drug”); and (b) came to know of her hub drug; (c) purchased her hub drug through her name in order to raise his/her living cost, etc., and sold it.

1. On July 2016, the Defendant: (a) received a request from D to request the purchase of hybrid drugs from D introduced by his/her friendship; (b) around July 1, 2016, the Defendant: (c) delivered to D one gram of hub drugs (JWH-018 and the dead body thereof); (d) issued to D one gram of 150,000 won in cash in the form of purchase price, including the recoverent component of “AM-B-FUBINA”, within the E-car parked in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon; (d) around July 1, 2016.

In addition, the Defendant, from around that time to January 30, 2017, issued D a total of 202 grams over 72 times in total, and received payment of KRW 25,877,00 in total as a purchase price.

2. The Defendant, upon the F’s request from the F, who was introduced by D to seek hub narcotics, issued the said 3 grams to F, and received 300,000 won in cash under the name of the purchase price, within the H car parked in the front of the said G Middle School around October 26, 2016.

In addition, the Defendant issued F with a total amount of 7 grams of hybrid drugs three times in total, and received 750,000 won under the pretext of the purchase price, as shown in the List of Crimes (2) from around that time to around January 2017.

[Defendant and defense counsel asserted that (1) Nos. 1 through 7 relating to the crime committed again may not be recognized because the place of transaction has changed.

D Even according to D's testimony, the defendant and D.

arrow