logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2021.01.21 2019고합738
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Notwithstanding that the Defendant, as a military personnel affiliated with the 2nd association of usfk, was not a narcotics handler, the Defendant treated ls, a local mental medicine as follows.

A. On October 29, 2018, the Defendant requested a seller of the nameless narcotics, etc., who is staying in the Netherlands, to send ls to the personal mail address (C) located in the territory where the Defendant was stationed in the Republic of Korea.

Accordingly, the seller contained lsD 10 Chapter lsD 10 in a remote place below the Netherlands and concealed it in a box, and then sent it by registered air mail on October 29, 2018. On October 29, 2018, the above seller arrived at the Incheon International Public Port located in the Jung-gu Incheon International Port.

Accordingly, the defendant imported lsD in collusion with his name-free persons.

B. On November 21, 2018, the Defendant requested a seller of the nameless narcotics, etc., who is staying in the Netherlands, to send ls to the personal mail box address (C) located in the territory where the Defendant was stationed in the Republic of Korea.

Accordingly, the seller contained lsD 10 Chapter 10 in a remote place below the Netherlands and concealed lsD 10 in a backba, and sent it by air registered mail on November 21, 2018, and arrived at the Incheon International Public Port located in the Jung-gu Incheon International Port.

Accordingly, the defendant imported lsD in collusion with his name-free persons.

2. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

A. Although the Defendant expressed his intention to refuse voluntary submission, the investigative agency again demanded voluntary submission of a mobile phone in de facto arrest, and without notifying the Defendant of the dismissal of the request for a search and seizure warrant for the mobile phone, deceiving and pressure the Defendant to seize the mobile phone upon obtaining the search and seizure warrant.

In addition, the defendant did not receive sufficient guidance on the right to participate in digital sirens from mobile phones.

Therefore, the investigative agency's cell phone from the defendant.

arrow