The case holding that the test result and the drug confiscated cannot be reinforced evidence for each medication by a narcotics offender.

The case holding that in light of the fact that the result of the urine test was only the medication conducted on January 17, 1995, and it was irrelevant to the previous 4 times prior to the medication, and that the seized drug is not used for the previous medication, the above urine test result and the seized drug is merely circumstantial evidence on the fact that the defendant's habition is ultimately a medication, and that the defendant's behavior constitutes a crime element, and even for habitual offenders who are a single comprehensive crime, it cannot be viewed as a corroborative evidence on the fact that each act constitutes the crime of violation of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act, based on circumstantial evidence on the nature of medication, it cannot be viewed as an objective medication, which constitutes the crime of violation of the psychotropic Drugs Control Act.

Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-do, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 95No432 delivered on July 7, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The facts charged of the instant case are as follows: the Defendant administered each 0.03g of the Mespheroids on June 1994, the mid-term order of July 7 of the same year, the mid-term order of October of the same year, the November 20 of the same year, and January 17, 1995, and purchased 9.04g of the Mesphersphers on January 18, 195; and the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that there is no evidence to reinforce the confession other than the confession of the Defendant, with respect to each of the above facts charged on June 1994, the mid-term order of July of the same year, the mid-term order of October of the same year, the mid-term order of October of the same year, and each of the Mesphersphersphersphers on November 20 of the same year.

The issue is that the statement of a written request for appraisal of the contents that the defendant taken on January 18, 1995, when the defendant was arrested, had the response to the training of Mesphere at the defendant's lawsuit, and that the fact that the Mesphere who was seized at the time of arrest from the defendant (as at the time of seizure, 9.04gs but remains after 7.94gs by using 1.1g in the component appraisal) remains as indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence about the medication on January 17, 1995, and the sale on January 18, 1995, which is direct evidence of the previous four times at the same time as well.

Therefore, the result of the above scopic test of the scopic test of the scopic test is only a medication act of January 17, 1995, and it is irrelevant to the previous four times, and the seized drugs are not used for the previous medication. Thus, the above scopic test result and the seized drugs are merely circumstantial evidence about the fact that the defendant is habitable for administration. Thus, the defendant's habits is a constituent element of crime, and it is individually demanded reinforcement evidence about each act constituting the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do148, 83Do266 delivered on July 26, 1983). In light of the above facts, each of the crimes of this case as concurrent crimes, each of the crimes of this case, which are concurrent crimes, can not be considered as supporting evidence about the fact that there was an objective medication of each act, which is an element of crime.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below with the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to reinforcement evidence such as theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)