beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. Summary of the facts charged
A. On April 19, 2015, the Defendant provided a Meptopon (hereinafter “Liopon”) with approximately 0.05 grams of psychotropic drugs to E in the Defendant’s cargo vehicle parked in front of the Defendant’s “D” restaurant in Incheon Bupyeong-gu, from around 20:00 to around 21:00 of the same day.
Accordingly, even if the defendant is not a person handling narcotics, he provided psychotropic drugs.
B. The Defendant administered philophones in an irregular manner between April 12, 2015 and April 22, 2015.
Accordingly, even if the defendant is not a person handling narcotics, he administered psychotropic drugs.
2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion that the indictment was made because the time, place, etc. of medication was not specified, thereby violating the provisions of the law, and the Defendant did not have any fact that the Defendant scopon or administered copon to E as in the instant facts charged.
3. The prosecutor of the judgment as to the unspecified assertion of the facts charged specified the date and time of the crime as “the date and time of the crime from April 12, 2015 to April 22, 2015” through the data on the period from which the phiphone training reaction was taken out (see, e.g., April 22, 2015) and the period discharged from the phiphone medication after the phiphone medication, and specified it as “the place where the crime was committed through the Defendant’s statement about the place of residence or communication and the analysis of the location of the Defendant’s handphone use at the time of arrest” as far as possible. In light of the characteristics of the crime of the phiphone medication, this part of the facts charged seems to be specified to the extent that it does not infringe the Defendant’s right to defense, in view of the characteristics of the crime of the phiphone medication, to the extent that it is reasonable.
Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.