beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although a mistake of facts can be recognized by the defendant on May 2015, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., in contrast to this, there is an error of misconception of facts.
B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too uneased and unfair.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
(a) the presumption of the timing for administration of narcotics on the basis of the results of the examination of the probative value as a result of the maternity test is premised on the average 1ccmm of the hair in a month;
However, the growth speed of the hair is about 0.8 to 1.3 cm per individual car per month, and it is about 15% of the total hair of the hair at the stage of leaving or suspending the growth during the collected hair.
It can be mixed with this, and since the mechanism where the drugs are affected by the maternity has not yet been fully identified, it is explained that the spread through the maternal dynassis on the part of the Madern part would be affected by the hair, but it is also suggested the possibility of being affected by blood, skin, etc., and the possibility of being affected by external factors.
The prudent shall be taken to see the timing of medication based on the results of Maternal evaluation.
In this respect, it is a general view that the results of the maternity appraisal fall short of probative value compared to the results of the dives appraisal.
B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts are acknowledged.
① On May 28, 2015, the anonymous informant F made a statement to the police that “the Defendant returned to the outside on May 24, 2015, and was actually frighted as a mentally weak person. The same shall apply to the administration of narcotics on that day.” The police taken the Defendant’s urine and hair on August 31, 2015, and conducted a simple reagents test on the urine.