Cases denying the credibility of confession made by the defendant at the prosecution;

Where the defendant is presumed to have been advisered by the narcotics monitoring team and there is no evidence to recognize that the confession made by the defendant to the prosecution is true on the ground that the voluntariness of confession made by the defendant is extremely suspected, the credibility of such confession shall not be recognized.

Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants are innocent.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows:

The Defendants are not entitled to handle psychotropic drugs, notwithstanding that they are not entitled to handle them:

1. On June 1987, Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 prepared funds, manufacturing place, water color, and manufacturing machinery, etc. necessary for manufacturing Mesapest (hereinafter referred to as Mesapest), Defendant 1 prepared production raw materials and manufacturing machinery, etc., such as Mesapest, manufacturing place, and chlorate cryp, etc., and the Defendant planned to manufacture mea mulberry and export it to Japan on condition that she would receive 15 million won at the expense of Non-Party 1, and planned to manufacture mea mulberry and export it to Korea. From the end of September 1987 to the end of November of the same year, Defendant 1 manufactured 20 kg-gun, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (detailed number omitted) using various raw materials and manufacturing machinery, such as chlorate 50 kilograms, from a building within a farm farm to the end of November of the same year.

2. Defendant 2: (a) received request from Nonindicted 1 on September 1987 to manufacture three coolants of a special structure necessary for the manufacture of would have been requested by him; (b) around that time, Defendant 2: (c) requested Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 1 to produce three coolants of structure and model requested by him; (d) sent them to Nonindicted 1; and (e) attempted to manufacture and deliver them to Nonindicted 1; and (e) assisted Defendant 1 to manufacture and send them to Nonindicted 1; and (e) denied the entire facts charged at the court, Defendant 1 did not intend to manufacture a mulberry with Nonindicted 1; (e) there was no manufacturing process; (g) Nonindicted 1 did not request Nonindicted 1 to keep the article (the instant seized article omitted) assigned to him in his house; and (g) there was no change in the process of manufacturing and delivering them to Nonindicted 1, 2, and there was no change in the body of the Defendants to Defendant 2.

Therefore, the evidence as shown in the facts charged is that there are the defendants' confession statement in the prosecutor's office, the statements in the prosecutor's office of the non-indicted 2 and the non-indicted 3, and the seizure articles of this case (Evidence 1 to 8), etc., the following should be considered.

In light of the above facts, the Defendants were unable to carry out an investigation of the confessions made by the prosecution, and the Defendants were unable to carry out the investigation of the above 8th public prosecutor's office using the 9th public prosecutor's office. According to the above facts charged, the Defendants were unable to carry out an investigation of the 8th public prosecutor's office using the 1st public prosecutor's office and the 1st public prosecutor's office using the 8th public prosecutor's office, and the 1st public prosecutor's office using the 8th public prosecutor's office using the 8th public prosecutor's office. According to the above facts charged, the Defendants were unable to carry out an investigation of the 8th public prosecutor's office using the 9th public prosecutor's office using the 8th public prosecutor's office using the 8th public prosecutor's office using the 8th public prosecutor's office using the 9th public investigator's office using the 8th public investigator's office using the 8th public investigator's office using the 9th public witness's office.

In addition, according to Non-Indicted 2's prosecutor's statement, it is difficult to conclude that Defendant 1 was prosecuted solely on the Non-Indicted 2's statement on the last day, where it is unclear whether the said cooling machine can be used in the manufacture of the paper mulberry because it was not seized by Defendant 2 after receiving three orders for a special structure cooling machine from Defendant 2.

In addition, according to Non-Indicted 3's prosecutor's statement, it was found that Defendant 1, his fraud, left the instant search and seizure articles (the prosecutor seems to have asserted that these articles were used in the instant ropic activities for the ropic activities) around December 1987 (as to this point, Defendant 1, who was the husband of his 5th degree father and his her son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's 1's son's son's w.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove the facts charged against Defendant 1 as above, and it is evident in light of the legal principle that the punishment for aiding and abetting Defendant 2, who was indicted as an aiding and abetting criminal by the same accused, cannot be punished as an aiding and abetting criminal. Therefore, the facts charged in the instant case return to the absence of proof of a crime, thereby rendering a sentence of innocence to the Defendants pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)