Cases where there is an error of law that misleads a person who holds, gives, or receives narcotics;

The act of delivery by Gap upon Gap's request to sell and request the sale of the narcotics is not a person who has sold and purchased the narcotics, but not a person who has received or delivered the narcotics. Thus, it constitutes Article 60-2 of the former Narcotics Act (Act No. 1954 of Apr. 7, 67).

Article 60-2 of the Narcotics Act

Defendant

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 68No163 delivered on March 27, 1968, the Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 68No163 delivered on March 27, 1968

The judgment below is reversed;

The case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

Before viewing the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered ex officio.

The criminal facts of the defendant are as follows. In other words, on October 5, 1967, the defendant was requested to sell and request the sale of 590 grams, who are narcotics, from the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the court of the first instance, and the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the part of the defendant.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Net Sheet