2020No1606 Narcotics Control Act (narcotics) or narcotics control;

Violation of law ( native)

A

Defendant

Pream Purification, mutually beneficial (prosecution), and best decoration (public trial)

Law Firm LBBS Partners

Attorney Kim Jong-sung, and Gyeong-won

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2020Gohap430, 2020Gohap582 Decided August 27, 2020

(Consolidated) Judgment

January 15, 2021

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

To order the defendant to be put on probation, to provide community service for 120 hours and to take lectures for pharmacologic treatment for 80 hours.

2,200,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The defendant shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment, and additional collection) shall be excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

Crimes related to narcotics are closely traded and administered, and it is not easy to detect them due to their characteristics, and there is a significant adverse effect on society as a whole due to addiction and decliation. The Defendant repeatedly purchased, sold, received, or administered various kinds of narcotics for a considerable period of time. The Defendant appears to have led to each of the crimes of this case, such as informing that he/she could face narcotics, etc., or actively requesting the transfer of narcotics, etc., and the nature of the crimes, such as distributing and providing part of the acquired narcotics, etc. to a third party, is not good.

However, the Defendant appears to have led to the confession and reflect of all of the crimes in this case, and again, the Defendant cooperateed in the investigation into each of the crimes in this case with respect to narcotics. In the case of the crime of buying narcotics, the Defendant appears to have purchased narcotics for the purpose of medication, and it does not seem to have been aimed at distributing them.

In addition, considering the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and result of the crime, the balance between the conditions of all the sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, and the punishment with the accomplice, it is judged that the punishment determined by the court below is too unreasonable. Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following decision is

[Reasons for multi-use Judgment]

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting the crime recognized by this court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the entries in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of joint purchase by philophonephones and X masterss), Articles 58(1)1, 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 2(d) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of joint purchase by ccocars), Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(b) (the point of joint purchase by ccocars) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., Articles 60(1)1, 3 subparag. 1, and 2 subparag. 2(d) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., Article 61(1)5, Article 4(1)4(1)1, and Article 3(1)3(d) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment imposed on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to the joint purchase of phiphonephonephones as indicated in paragraph (1) 1 / 2 of the Crime List No. 2 of the Case No. 2020, 430, as indicated in the Decision No. 2020, the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flag)

1. Selection of punishment;

In regard to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (psychotropic) due to the joint purchase of opphonephones, X-phones, the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flavoring), the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flavoking), the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flavoking), the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flavoking), the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flavoking) due to the receipt and medication

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes concerning Narcotic Drugs, etc. (Narcotic Drugs) as provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act due to Joint Purchase by Cocars with the largest penalty)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The consideration of the favorable circumstances in the preceding);

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Assumed normal consideration in the foregoing favor)

1. Probation, order to provide community service and attend lectures;

The main sentence of Article 62-2(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

The proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

[1] 2.2 million won [The basis for calculating a surcharge] 2.2 million won [=2.1 million won for the purchase of narcotics, etc., stated in the crime of paragraph (1) as indicated in the judgment in the case of paragraph (1) of this Article + KRW 600,000 + KRW 300,000 + KRW 500,000 + KRW 500,000 + KRW 2020 + KRW 100,000 for a single medication for an X-gu in the case of 5

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months from one year to half years and six months;

2. The scope of the recommended sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria shall not apply as some of the crimes are formally concurrent crimes.

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months, and three years of suspension of execution;

The sentence against the defendant shall be determined as above in consideration of the overall circumstances mentioned above.

The presiding judge and judge system;

Judges Yang Jin-soo

Judges Allocation Free

1) The facts constituting the crime of Paragraph 2 of the instant case, as indicated in the judgment, are administered with narcotics purchased in accordance with the facts constituting the crime of Paragraph 1 of the instant case. As such, as long as additional collection is required for the act of purchasing them, separate collection is unnecessary. Moreover, in the case of giving and receiving and delivering DNAs in the instant case 2020 Gohap582, additional collection charges shall not be calculated on the grounds that the market price of the relevant ingredients has not been verified.