beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and the misapprehension of the legal principle) was known that the Defendant was engaged in illegal goods in a household room for the traveler of this case, which he transported, and as such, it is reasonable to see that the Defendant knew that he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a drug-related crime, as he was aware of the fact that he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a drug-related crime.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant is not a person dealing with narcotics, etc. as a foreigner with nationality.
On July 18, 2018, the Defendant, in collusion with nameless boxes (hereinafter “B”), and C, carried a psychotropic drug, which contains a sum of 28.48 km from D hotel in Jung-gu in Seoul to the five-story store goods storage in Jung-gu in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, to the five-story store goods storage, and carried a psychotropic drug, which includes a sum of psychotropic drugs, from 28.48 km (hereinafter “clopon”). From that time to that time, the Defendant: (a) stored the said bank in the storage of the goods storage, and (b) carried a copon by having G in receipt of instructions from B receive the instructions from B around the 24th of the same month; and (c) possessed a copon by having G find the said bank.
B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the following grounds.
1) The Defendant consistently stated from the investigative agency to this court that he was unaware of whether there was a penphone in the door for a traveler who had consistently C. There is no evidence to prove that B and C knew the Defendant that there was a penphone in the door for a traveler. G state that the Defendant does not contain a penphone in the door for a traveler. 2) C state that there was no penphone in the door for a traveler.