logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 서부지원 2017.10.23 2017고단257
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Criminal facts

On April 14, 2017, around 01:10, the Defendant administered Mebacule (one philopon; hereinafter “philopon”) approximately 0.04 g of Mebacule, a local mental medicine, which was received from D at the public parking lot in front of the Defendant’s house located in Seo-gu Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, by dilutioning the aquatic organism.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Determination as to the defendant and defense counsel's assertion of the witness D's legal statement

1. On April 14, 2017, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the police officer voluntarily accompanied the defendant to the police station of thought 20:10 on April 14, 201, and refused to perform the defense and hair inspection, and the defendant was urgently arrested the defendant around 21:45 on the same day. Since the defendant did not receive notification from the investigative agency that he could refuse to be accompanied at the time of voluntary accompanying, the aforementioned voluntary accompanying constitutes an illegal arrest and detention, and therefore, the evidence collected in the process is also unlawful and inadmissible as evidence collected.

2. Determination on whether the evidence obtained illegally

A. Article 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act specifies the principle of voluntary investigation.

In the form of an investigator's accompanying a suspect to an investigative agency, etc. in the form of obtaining consent in the course of an investigation, since there is no way to suppress the suspect's physical freedom because it is restricted and substantially similar to the arrest, it is not possible to guarantee voluntaryness as well as institutionally through it, and it is highly likely that the Constitution and Criminal Litigation Act do not provide various rights guarantee devices granted to a suspect under arrest and detention on the ground that it is prior to the regular arrest and detention stage.

Therefore, the investigator informed the suspect that he could refuse to accompany prior to being accompanied, or the suspect who was accompanied by the suspect is free to leave or accompany the suspect at any time.

arrow