logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2019.05.16 2019도97
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Case history

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, who resides in Vietnam, would receive and sell psychotropic drugs from the Republic of Korea if he/she sends the camba (hereinafter “cambaphone”), and B, around October 21, 2017, concealed the aircraft by inserting 30 g of camphone into the cambbbbbball in Vietnam and melting water, and then sending the aircraft by international mail, and the Defendant imported 30 g of cambalon in collusion with B by receiving the cambalon which was brought into the Republic of Korea via the Incheon International Airport around October 23, 2017.

B. The first instance court rejected the Defendant’s appeal against the failure to use phiphonephones on B, and found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (psychotropic Affairs). However, on the ground that there is no proof as to the fact that the imported phiphones amount to five million won or more, the first instance court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that there was no proof.

C. Unlike the first instance court, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence as to the fact that a philophone was used on the liquid contained in B, which had been submitted by the prosecutor only by the evidence presented by the prosecutor, on the ground of insufficient evidence.

However, the court below held that the defendant's act was an impossible attempt to commit the crime of importing phiphones by bringing in B and B by international mail, inviting the defendant to sell them, and notifying B of the address to receive international mail, but the defendant started to commit the crime of importing phiphones, but did not contain phiphones, and if B actually sent phiphones, there is a risk of causing the result of phiphones import if phiphones were sent. Thus, the defendant's act is an impossible attempt to commit the crime of importing phiphones.

arrow