(a) Whether the crime of possessing psychotropic drugs is established separately from the crime of selling and buying psychotropic drugs, where the purchased psychotropic drugs continue to be held without disposing of them;

(b) A case which is regarded as a purchase independent possession, from the purchase of Mesphere for administration after the purchase of Mesphere;

(a) Where a person continues to possess the purchased psychotropic drugs without disposing of them, such possession shall be deemed to constitute a crime of possession of psychotropic drugs separate from the crime of selling and selling psychotropic drugs, unless it is judged that the possession is in an indivisible relationship with the trade act, or that it is a written result accompanying the trade act and is merely temporarily conducted;

B. The case holding that the act of hiding under the book of the office for administration after the purchase of the Mestopist shall not be evaluated as an indivisible result of the purchase and sale of the Mestopist, and rather, the purchase of the Mestopist shall constitute a separate possession independent from social norms.

Article 42(1) of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Do1211 delivered on January 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 590) and 90Do543 delivered on July 27, 1990 (Gong190, 1838)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court Decision 95No141 delivered on March 30, 1995

The non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to Incheon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, among the facts charged in this case, the defendant concealed 0.8g of the remaining 0.8g of the Mesacam administered by the non-indicted on November 24, 1993 from 23:00 to 21.10 of the same month, under the book of the company's office from 24.21.10 of the same month, and held it. The court below found the defendant not guilty of the above possession on the ground that the above possession was not established, where the crime of selling and selling psychotropic drugs (purchase) under Article 42 (1) 1 of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act is established, as a result of the sale and purchase, as a result of the purchase and sale of psychotropic drugs, the possession of psychotropic drugs naturally accompanying the above act is a fluoral accompanying act, and does not constitute a separate crime.

However, if a person continues to possess the purchased psychotropic drugs without disposing of them, it shall be deemed that the possession of psychotropic drugs constitutes a crime of possession of psychotropic drugs, rather than a crime of sale of psychotropic drugs, unless it is judged that the possession is in an indivisible relationship with the sale act, or that it is merely an inevitable result accompanying the sale act, and that it is merely conducted temporarily (see Supreme Court Decision 90Ma543, Jul. 27, 1990).

With respect to this case, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant, in the records, purchased the Mestopian as above, and then concealed the fact under the book above the above office's book in order to administer it in an appropriate opportunity. Such possession cannot be evaluated as an indivisible result of the above sale act, and rather, it should be viewed that the purchase act constitutes a separate possession independent of social norms.

Nevertheless, since the court below acquitted the part of the crime of carrying psychotropic drugs on the ground as seen earlier, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the prohibition of possession without permission under the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act, and there is a reason to point out this error (the court below held that the act of carrying psychotropic drugs after the judgment of 89Do1211 delivered on January 25, 190 is all the result of the act of receiving and receiving psychotropic drugs, and it does not constitute a separate crime as a result of the crime of receiving and receiving, but the purport of the above judgment is that the act of carrying psychotropic drugs as a result of the act of receiving and receiving psychotropic drugs is not absorption into the crime of receiving and receiving, and it does not necessarily constitute a separate crime of holding as to the act of carrying psychotropic drugs, which is evaluated as an act independent of the act of receiving and receiving them

Therefore, the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)