beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Reasons for appeal
A. As to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. among the facts charged in the instant case, there is no fact that the Defendant administered a scopon, and there is no fact that the Defendant issued to B about 6 know-hows and scopon scopons, which contain the romatic drugs, a local mental medicine.
B. The punishment of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, additional collection KRW 100,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding about the administration of camphones where there is a reply to a request from the Director of the National Institute for Scientific Investigation to make an appraisal that the cam is detected in the Defendant’s hair, barring special circumstances, such as the change of the hair that is a test material or the mistake or error in the appraisal that forms the basis of the response, it should be recognized that the camcam was detected in the cam taken from the Defendant. Accordingly, under logical and empirical rules, the Defendant had administered camcams in the cams before collecting the hair that is the subject of appraisal.
It should be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do1680, Dec. 9, 1994). 2) In other words, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court of the first instance (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do1680, Dec. 9, 1994) and the court of the first instance, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the investigation agency (i.e., the defendant's hair collected approximately 100 on May 14, 2019 and appraised by the National Science Investigation Agency at the length of 5.5m or 7.5m or 5m or more, and the result of the appraisal of the hair and the fact that the maternity of the adult were 1m or more at the average of 7m or more in the ordinary month during which appraisal samples were collected (the counsel is presumed to detect the defendant's hair from 5.5m or 7m or more of the defendant's hair collected from 5.7m or more.