logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.08.08 2017고단3370
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The defendant shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence against the defendant.

Reasons

1. A person who is not a handler of narcotics, etc. or a person who is not a handler of narcotics, etc., shall not administer a chrophone (one philophone, hereinafter “philophone”), which is a local mental medicine, and the Defendant is not a handler of narcotics, etc.

On October 9, 2016, from October 18, 2016 to October 18, 2016, the Defendant administered philophones in an irregular way between ancient city, Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Pakistan-si, or Seoul Jung-gu.

2. The mere fact that an appraiser conducted an analysis as a standard inspection method with professional knowledge, technology, and experience and submitted it to a court in order to have a considerable binding force in finding facts is insufficient. The identity of samples in all processes, such as the collection, storage, analysis, etc. of samples, should be recognized, and there should be no artificial manipulation, damage, or addition, and the records that can confirm the procedure for the accurate acceptance and transfer of samples in each stage should be maintained (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do1422, Feb. 8, 2018). In this case, in which the defendant was launched into an investigation and the prosecutor does not clearly state the date, time, place, method, etc. of the Defendant’s partially phiphone medication, the result of appraisal of the alteration and reproduction of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office of Justice is merely a direct evidence of the fact of the Defendant’s phiphone medication.

In this regard, there was no evidence to verify whether the defendant's defense, which was the object of appraisal, was sealed before the defendant's view and transferred to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office without manipulation or damage, and there was no evidence to prove that the defense or the hair was the defendant, and there was no evidence to prove as a scientific examination that the defense or the hair was the defendant.

In light of the above circumstances, the above appraisal result and the evidence duly adopted and examined in this case alone are sufficient to have reasonable doubt as to the facts charged of this case.

arrow