2017Gohap148 Narcotics Control Act, etc. (fence) and narcotics control officials

Violation of Chinese law (marijuana)

A

Hycom (Court) Nos. (Court of Second Instance), Hycom (Court of Second Instance)

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

April 13, 2017

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Seized evidence 1 to 7 shall be confiscated, respectively.

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Criminal History Office

【Criminal Power】

On May 11, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. in the Sungwon District Court's Sungnam branch, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 3, 2017.

【Criminal Facts】

Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

1. Points of trade of philophones and marijuana;

On February 3, 2017, at around 15:00, the Defendant contacted the nameless winners of narcotics (hereinafter referred to as "D"), who are the sales books of narcotics known to him through public telephone via public telephone, to purchase the penphones and marijuana, and according to the order of the above nameless winners, the Defendant waited for a cash of 2 million won prior to the exit No. 4 in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, with a cash of 2 million won prior to the exit, and then transferred it to the unfolding male who was waiting for Ortoba, and then found to be below the lower part of the railroad station, as written on the side, the Defendant turned out to the 3rd wall distribution hole of the bicycle storage. The above name was filled out with approximately 3gylphones in the form of a pen-phone, which was left in the wall distribution outlet and 2gyl chlorides.

Accordingly, the Defendant traded philophones and marijuana.

2. Points of the administration of philophones.

At least 18:00 on the same day as Paragraph 1, the Defendant: (a) inserted approximately 0.03g of oponphones purchased as above into a single-use injection machine; (b) injected them into the bloodline inside the left arms in a way of injecting them.

3. The point of possession of penphones or marijuana;

On February 6, 2017, the Defendant: (a) administered H hotel 302 heading in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, “H hotel 302 heading,” and carried approximately 0.35ggs, among the hempphones purchased as provided in paragraph (1), in order to administer them to women of the other side of the sexual act, using less than 0.04g, 0.06g, 0.07g, 0.08g, 0.08g, 0.1g in five for a single-use, and the remaining 0.46gs, in total, contain in a vinyl, and carry approximately 0.81g, among marijuana purchased as provided in paragraph (1), in a plastic package.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. ACCUSIGN testing, and a response to a request for appraisal made by the head of the Seoul Science Research Institute (2017-H-1950, 2017-H-1944);

1. Seizure records, records of seizure and the list of respective seizure records;

1. Photographs of seized articles;

1. Each investigation report (Attachment of the contents of conversation, attachment of a report on the results of preliminary tests by the State and the relevant countries, report on the market price, and calculation of the amount additionally collected);

1. Previous convictions: The result of the confinement of prisoners / Entry or departure of individuals, personal records, replys to inquiries, such as criminal records, the current status of confinement by individuals, reports on investigation, and rulings attached thereto;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 60(1)2, 4(1), and 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Narcotics Control Act (the point of possession of opphonephones, administered, and possessed), Article 59(1)7, and Article 3 subparag. 7 of the Narcotics Control Act (the point of sale of marijuana), Article 61(1)4(b), and Article 3 subparag. 10(b) of the Narcotics Control Act (the point of possession of mariths)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by Handphones and the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flaps) due to the trade of marijuana, the punishment of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flaps) due to the trade of heavy marijuana, the punishment of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flaps) due to the holding of opphones and the punishment of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flaps) due to the holding of opphones

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of each imprisonment with labor for the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flag) and the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flag) due to the administration of phiphones.

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act (Provided, That the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act shall not apply to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. ( marijuana) by the sale of marijuana

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The punishment provided for in the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act for the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (aggravating concurrent crimes within the limit provided for in the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act due to the trade of marijuana with the largest penalty provided for in the former part of Article 37

1. Confiscation;

The main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

1. Collection 3);

The proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

[Calculation of Amount of Additional Collection: 100,000 won for a dose once of philophones (criminal facts in the market)]

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for one year to 50 years; and

2. Reference to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crimes and concurrent crimes: Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flavoring) by medication and possession of phiphonephones;

[Determination of Types 3 (Determination of Types 8 (b) and (c)) of Medications).

[A person under special jurisdiction] The same criminal record (a person under suspended execution for not more than three years)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, 1 year to 3 years of imprisonment

(b) Second concurrent crime: the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (marijuth) due to the trade of marijuana;

[Determination of Types] Trade assistance, etc. in the trade of narcotics, Type 2 (mariju, flag (b), Item c, etc.)

[Special Mitigation/Discretionary] Purchase or acceptance for simple possession, etc. of medication / Criminal records of the same kind (not less than a stay of execution for not more than three years)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, Imprisonment of 8 months to 1 year and 6 months;

(c) Results according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: one year to five years.

3. Determination of sentence;

The Defendant committed the instant crime by purchasing philophones and marijuana, and administering, possessing, and possessing marijuana purchased as such. The Defendant has already been punished several times due to the same kind of crime. In particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime within the repeated crime period after the completion of the execution of punishment due to the purchase, administration, etc. of philophones, and in particular, committed the instant crime. Considering that narcotics, etc. are highly harmful to individuals and society as a whole, and need to take more strict measures to eradicate narcotics crimes, etc., it is inevitable to punish the Defendant significantly.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime at an investigative agency, and is against his/her own mistake. In addition, the Defendant appears to have made efforts to prevent recidivism, such as attending a probation office on a regular basis after the release of the Defendant, and undergoing an inspection. Such circumstances are considered as favorable to the Defendant.

The punishment shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, health status, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc., which are unfavorable or favorable to the defendant, and all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments in this case.

The presiding judge, judge Kim Jong-tae

Judges Kim Gin-han

Support for judges' organization

1) The Defendant was detained on November 12, 2015 as the foregoing case, and the detention was revoked on November 11, 2016, prior to the final judgment (Evidence record 61, 111, 127, and 141). The prosecutor stated on November 11, 2016, which is the date of revocation of detention in the indictment, as the date of execution of a sentence. However, the execution of a sentence is based on the final judgment, and the execution of a sentence is not immediately executed. Thus, even if the detention of the Defendant was revoked, the date of revocation of detention cannot be deemed as the date of termination of imprisonment immediately. Accordingly, the Defendant’s term of imprisonment is calculated from February 3, 2017, which is the date of the final judgment, but no further sentence remains to be executed due to the inclusion of days of detention in the principal sentence, and thus, the judgment and execution of imprisonment is finalized as a result.

2) As seen earlier, the Defendant completed the execution of imprisonment with prison labor at the same time as the judgment had become final and conclusive on February 3, 2017. According to the records, the Defendant was found to have committed each of the crimes listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Decision between 15:00 and 18:00 on February 3, 201, after becoming aware of the fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive by dismissal of the Supreme Court’s appeal through “the search by the Internet” on February 3, 2017, and then, the Defendant constitutes a repeated crime. Therefore, each of the crimes listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Decision constitutes a case where the Defendant committed a crime within three years after having been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment

3) As indicated in Paragraph 1 of the holding, the Defendant purchased 3g and 2g of the penphones and purchased 0.03g of the penphones as indicated in Paragraph 2 of the judgment, and administered 0.03g of the penphones as indicated in Paragraph 2 of the judgment, and seized to an investigation agency the amount of 0.81g and marijuana 0.53g of the penphones that the Defendant purchased. While the sum of the number of the penphones administered in the quantity of the seized penphones and marijuana falls short of the sum of the penphones and marijuana purchased, the records show that the remainder of the penphones and marijuana except the penphones administered by the Defendant was entirely seized. As such, the Defendant sentenced the confiscation of the seized penphones and marijuana, and thus only the value of 0.03g of the penphones administered by the Defendant is collected.

4) In the case of a crime in a mutually competitive relationship, the sentencing criteria shall not be deemed to apply, but shall be see, as appropriate, the sentencing criteria as follows: