[1] The meaning of the import of marijuana under the Cannabis Control Act and the time of the import of the aircraft using the aircraft (=the time of carrying in the ground)

[2] The meaning of the number of people under Article 52 (1) of the Criminal Code

[3] The case holding that, in case where the fact of carrying marijuana was discovered by the metal detection machine in the customs search, it does not constitute a self-denunciation in the case where the import of marijuana was attempted by the customs search officer under the investigation by the customs search officer

[1] The term "import of marijuana" in Article 18 of the Cannabis Control Act refers to all acts of carrying marijuana from overseas to the territory of the Republic of Korea. The purpose, intent, and the degree of excess of the import are not superior to whether it is established. On the other hand, the Cannabis Control Act aims to contribute to the improvement of national health by properly managing marijuana and preventing its outflow (Article 1 of the same Act). In the event of importing marijuana by using an aircraft, the risk of harm to national health is already caused by the ground entry of marijuana. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret the above act to go against the number of flights at the time of carrying it from the aircraft to the ground.

[2] The self-denunciation stipulated in Article 52 (1) of the Criminal Code refers to an expression of intent to seek prosecution by reporting the criminal facts voluntarily to an investigation agency.

[3] The case holding that, in case where the fact of carrying marijuana was discovered by the metal detection machine in the customs search, when the act of importing marijuana was committed by the customs search officer under the investigation by the customs search officer, the lack of self-harm and thus, it does not constitute a self-denunciation

[1] Article 4 subparagraph 1 and Article 18 of the Cannabis Control Act / [2] Article 52 (1) of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 52 (1) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 71Do160 delivered on April 28, 1971 (Gong19-1, 157), Supreme Court Decision 93Do3416 delivered on March 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1235), Supreme Court Decision 97Do1271 delivered on July 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 258), Supreme Court Decision 98Do2734 delivered on November 27, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 87) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 82Do1965 delivered on September 28, 198 (Gong1982, 1058), Supreme Court Decision 9Do39498 delivered on June 10, 198 (Gong1982, 294, 297Do94989 delivered on June 29, 199)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-chul

Seoul High Court Decision 98No2288 delivered on December 9, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. After December 9, 1998, the number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the public defender are examined together.

1. As to the violation of the rules of evidence

According to the records in the records of the search and seizure of the prosecutor's document (in the first instance judgment, 16 pages), which is evidence as cited by the court below, the prosecutor, at the time of the import of the marijuana of this case, seizes the hemp total of 82.5g from the defendant at the time of voluntary submission of the defendant at the time of the import of the hemp of this case. Thus, there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence in the fact-finding of the court below that the weight of the hemp imported by the defendant

2. As to the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crimes of importing marijuana under the Cannabis Control Act and the timing of receiving it

The term "import of marijuana" in Article 18 of the Cannabis Control Act means all acts of bringing marijuana from overseas to the territory of the Republic of Korea. The purpose, intent, and excess of the amount of the import is not superior (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1271, Jul. 11, 1997; 98Do2734, Nov. 27, 1998; 98Do2734, Nov. 27, 1998). On the other hand, the Cannabis Control Act aims to contribute to the improvement of public health by properly controlling marijuana and preventing its outflow (Article 1 of the same Act). Since the risk of harm to public health by importing marijuana was already caused by the ground entry of the hemp, it is reasonable to interpret the said act to go against water at the time of carrying it from the aircraft to the ground (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3147, Mar. 11, 1994).

However, according to the evidence of the first instance court cited by the court below, at around 23:40 on May 18, 1998, the defendant purchased 82.5gg of the hemp from a taxi driver on his name in the Switzerland's territory, and then put the 0.5g above into the wall, and put the remainder 82g of the hemp in the bottom of 1,000 g under each inside of the 1st, respectively, of the 13:00 on the following day, while carrying the wall containing the above marijuana at the port of Marrira's delivery at around 13:0 on the 19:0 on the 17:30 on the same day, the above aircraft arrived at the port of Kimpo-si's provision, and it was discovered by a customs officer at the place of the above aircraft, and thus, if the defendant had already carried the aircraft into the ground, the crime of this case was committed against the defendant's new import of the aircraft.

In the above purport, the court below's decision that recognized the defendant's act of importing marijuana of this case as an import crime under the Cannabis Control Act is just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the import of marijuana under the Cannabis Control Act and the time of the flight. The argument is without merit.

3. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to self-denunciation

The self-denunciation under Article 52(1) of the Criminal Code refers to an expression of intent to seek prosecution by reporting the criminal facts voluntarily to an investigation agency (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2130, Oct. 14, 1994).

According to the records, when the defendant intends to put 0.5g of hemp in 0.5g, he shall carry it in the wall, pack the 41g of hemp, put it in the bottom of each inner body of 1,00 g of hemp, and put it in the line under the influence of 1,00 g of hemp, and then, when he wants to pass through the Kimpo-type search device, he shall have metal detection in front, who is a public official belonging to the Kimpo-si and the Kimpo-si office, searched the defendant's body with a portable metal detection machine, and then searches the defendant's body with a portable metal detection machine. Since the above high metal detection was made near the body of the defendant, the defendant who is asked about what he is the above high-Namnam of hemp is a tobacco, and the defendant was in possession of hemp again, and the fact that he did not actually assist the judicial police officer's duty at the same time, he appears to have been in the position of assisting the judicial police officer's duty.

In light of the above facts, although the defendant was actually engaged in the import of marijuana to a customs inspector who assist the judicial police officer's duties, it was not voluntary by the defendant, but did not carry the hemp in the situation where the fact of carrying the hemp was discovered immediately by metal detection machine, so this cannot be viewed as a self-denunciation because of lack of self-harm.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant's act does not constitute a self-denunciation is just, and there is no reason to issue an appeal pointing out that the defendant's act does not constitute a self-denunciation.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the whole number of days of detention pending trial after the appeal is included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)