2012 Highest 3696 Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (franking)

Note A

Gangwon-do (Public Prosecution) and Kim Jong-Un (Public Trial)

Attorney Hah-ho (National Assembly)

May 1, 2013

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant was not a person handling narcotics, but the Defendant promised to sell 0.7g of philopon in the amount of KRW 800,000,000,000 to the clopon account under the name of the Defendant at around August 18, 2012 upon receipt of a request from YB to seek a copon of copon, and trading copon by receiving KRW 800,000,000 from YB to the copon account under the name of the Defendant.

2. Defendant's assertion;

In regard to this, the Defendant received the above KRW 800,000 from YellowB at the above temporary border, but the above money is not a philophone sales price, but a part of it is a repayment of the existing claim against YellowB, and the remainder is paid with the expenses of the Defendant’s work performed upon request by YellowB prior to the above request, and thus, the facts charged of this case cannot be recognized.

3. Determination

A. Even if the Defendant was paid the price by the person who intends to purchase the philopon upon the request to seek the philopon, the Defendant was in the possession or acquisition of the philopon. Unless it is recognized that the Defendant was paid the price under the close or fastness of the possible sale act, the Defendant’s above act can be deemed as a preliminary act for the sale, and cannot be deemed as the commencement of the execution of the philopon transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2392, May 29, 2008).

B. Therefore, in full view of the following facts: (a) YB and KimC’s respective legal statements, etc., regardless of the Defendant’s change, the amount of KRW 800,000,000,000,000, which was remitted to the Defendant around August 18, 2012, may be sufficiently recognized as having been sent to the Defendant by YellowB for the purpose of seeking the Defendant’s penphone. However, even upon examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, there is no evidence to find that the Defendant had already possessed or obtained the penphone at the time of receiving the said transfer, or that it had been closely and closely connected to the possible trading act; (b) there is no evidence to find that the fact that the Defendant received the penphone from YellowB upon the request of the Defendant for the delivery of the phonephone, and received the funds, it cannot be said that it constitutes a preliminary or conspiracy act, or a crime of fraud, regardless of whether it constitutes fraud.

D. Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts and thus, acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judge Choi-hee