logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.06.09 2016도4927
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court.

Reasons

1. In a collection under the Narcotics Control Act, if all or part of the narcotics were confiscated from the owner or the last possessor of the narcotics, it is the same as the confiscation in relation to the other narcotics, so the value of the confiscated narcotics cannot be collected from other handlers (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2819, Jun. 11, 2009). 2. The lower court determined that the Defendant promised to receive KRW 16 million from C on May 1, 2015, and reported C to me about approximately 167 g of Mepta (hereinafter “Mephonephone”), which is a psychotropic medicine, and maintained the first instance judgment that collected from the Defendant, KRW 16 million, by applying the proviso to Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act.

3. However, according to the record, C was prosecuted for committing a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (compact) with respect to the facts constituting the crime that C possessed 167.37 g of the philophone, which was 167, among the philophones he was dried by the Defendant as the Ulsan District Court 2015 High Court 1226, and the above court sentenced C to the confiscation of the above philophones confiscated from C on July 8, 2015, and it can be recognized that the above judgment became final and conclusive. As such, even in relation with the Defendant, it is the same as the confiscation of the above philophones, and the value of the philophones confiscated from the Defendant cannot be collected as a penalty.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding collection of additional charges and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

arrow