2017Gohap624 Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (marijuana)

1. A;

2. B

Kim Chang-seop (Lawsuits) and Park Jong-chul (Trial)

Attorney C (the national election for the defendant A)

Law Firm D (Defendant B)

Attorney E

July 20, 2017

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, with respect to Defendant B, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

To order Defendant B to provide community service for 120 hours.

jointly collected KRW 1,000,000 from the Defendants, and KRW 203,00 from the Defendant A, respectively.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

Criminal facts

1. Defendant A

(a) Trade in marijuana;

On August 22, 2016, at around 15:50, the Defendant: (a) requested H to rescue marijuana on the roads near G basin located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the G basin; (b) received 1.2 million won from H; (c) as long as much as possible, B met B in the vicinity; (d) received 1.2 million won out of the above 1.2 million won; and (e) received as a result, the amount of hemp in question was dried.

Accordingly, the Defendant traded marijuana.

(b) Smoking marijuana;

On June 4, 2017, the Defendant drank dynasium around 14:00 after being dynasium in the vicinity of the J in the early city of John, after being dynasium into tobacco.

Accordingly, the Defendant smoked marijuana.

2. Defendant B

At around 15:50 on August 22, 2016, the Defendant received 1 million won from A around the roads adjacent to the above G Station, as described in paragraph (a) of Article 1, and, in return, cut off the marith of marijuana to A.

Accordingly, the Defendant traded marijuana.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. The suspect interrogation protocol and statement of H concerning the police officer;

1. Each list of seizure and each protocol of seizure;

1. - Details of mobile phone calls;

1. A narcotics appraisal statement;

1. A report on investigation (calculated additional charges);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Article 59(1)7 and Article 3 subparag. 9 (1) of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (Amended by Act No. 14019, Feb. 3, 2016); Article 61(1)4 (a) and Article 3 subparag. 10 (a) of the Narcotics Control Act (amended by Act No. 14019, Feb. 3, 2016)

B. Defendant B: Articles 59(1)7 and 3 subparag. 9 of the former Narcotics Control Act (Amended by Act No. 14019, Feb. 3, 2016)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: The concurrent crimes resulting from the violation of the Narcotics Control Act (mathic) by the trade in marijuana with the heavier punishment provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of the sum of the long-term punishments of the above two crimes)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant B: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (General Considerations favorable to the reasons for sentencing below)

1. Social service order;

Defendant B: Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

The proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

【Reasons for Calculation of Surcharge】

○ Defendants: 1,000,000 won (the trade part of marijuana)

○ Defendant A: 203,00 won = 20,000 won (proceeds from the trade of marijuana) + 3,000 won (one time for smoking in marijuana)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment for one to thirty-five years;

B. Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year to 30 years

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

A. Defendant A

1. Basic crime: Violation of the Narcotics Control Act due to the sale and purchase of marijuana;

[Determination of Types] Trade assistance, etc. in the trade of narcotics, Type 2 (mariju, flag (b), Item c, etc.)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, One year to two years of imprisonment

2. Second concurrent crime: Violation of the Narcotics Control Act by smoking in marijuana;

[Determination of Types] Simple Possession, etc. of Medication 2 (ma, ma. d. and e.)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment from 8 months to 1 year and 6 months

3) Scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year to two years; and

B. Defendant B

[Determination of Types] Type 2, such as assistance in the trade of narcotics (mariju, item (b) and (c), etc.)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, One year to two years of imprisonment

3. Determination of sentence;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment for one year;

B. Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, two years of suspended sentence, and the following circumstances are taken into account; the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the commission of the crime; various factors of sentencing and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines, including the circumstances after the commission of the crime, shall be determined as per the order.

【Unfavorable Circumstances】

In light of the characteristics of narcotics-related crimes, it is not easy to detect the risks of recidivism, and there is a significant negative impact on the society as a whole due to the cryptability, toxicity, etc. The quantity of marijuana traded by the Defendants is significant. Even though Defendant A’s assertion was found to have refused the request of Defendant B, which attempted to dispose of marijuana in early 2016, around August 2016, Defendant A received a request from H and contacted Defendant B, thereby resulting in the instant crime, and thus, Defendant A’s criminal liability cannot be deemed to be less than that of Defendant A’s criminal liability. Defendant A had five criminal records identical to that of Defendant A, including two criminal penalties.

【Free Circumstances】

The Defendants are contrary to the recognition of the instant crime. The Defendants’ act of selling marijuana is nothing more than once. Defendant B appears to have committed the instant crime on one of the grounds that his living conditions led to the commission of the crime, and there is no criminal record of the same kind or suspension of execution.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

The prosecutor prosecuted the Defendants’ purchase price of marijuana as KRW 1.2 million on the facts constituting the crime.

2. Determination

The evidence directly consistent with this part of the facts charged is the only statement of Defendant A that the full amount of KRW 1.2 million received from H was used for the purchase price. Considering the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the above statement is difficult to believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged.

① Defendant A in contact with H, led to the determination of the instant purchase price for marijuana, and Defendant A also recognized that Defendant B had sold marijuana for a long time or had not participated in the determination of the purchase price for marijuana.

② The assertion that Defendant B received KRW 1 million in the purchase price was accepted, and that Defendant B did not receive more than KRW 200,000,000 in the purchase price. On the other hand, Defendant A plays a role in interesting in the trade of marijuana and delivering marijuana and the price from the standpoint that the relationship with Defendant B was not deep. As such, there is a possibility that Defendant A could have avoided the purchase price and paid for the transaction of marijuana.

③ At the police station, H stated that “Defendant A did not possess marijuana,” and she is aware that she was supplied with marijuana to someone else and arranged for it in the middle and received some amount.”

(4) Defendant A knew that he had a hemp at the Defendant’s home, which was Defendant B’s internal combustion.

(5) Defendant A shall have a total of five times of criminal records, including two times of imprisonment.

Therefore, the facts charged in this part should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of crime. However, as long as the facts charged in this part are found guilty, the decision of innocence shall not be made separately.

The presiding judge; and

Judges in the order of precedence

Judge Kang Dong-hun