The judgment of the first instance and the reasons for reversal, which did not specify the summary of the evidence, shall be found guilty.

It is a reason for reversal that a person who does not specify the summary of evidence in a conviction is an unlawful act without attaching the reason for the judgment.

Articles 323 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and four others

Defendants

Seoul District Criminal Court (76 High Court Decision 523)

The original judgment against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for two years, by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for one year and six months, and by imprisonment for one year and five years.

Of the detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, 55 days for the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, 60 days for each sentence shall be included in the calculation of the punishment against the defendant.

However, with respect to the defendant 5, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Of the hemps in the attached list in which seizure was made, subparagraphs 1 through 14 of this paragraph shall be confiscated from Defendant 2, and subparagraph 15 of this paragraph shall be confiscated from Defendant 3, respectively.

The sum totaling KRW 294,00 from Defendant 1, and KRW 1,590,000 from Defendant 3 shall be collected respectively.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 is as follows: although the defendant did not recognize that the act of selling and selling the hemp plant was illegal, there was a violation of the law in the original judgment; the first point in the grounds for appeal by Defendant 3, 4, and 5 is that there was a violation of the law in the original judgment; the first point in the grounds for appeal by Defendant 3, 5, etc. is that the amount received from Co-Defendant 2 is less than 700,000 won in the amount that is less than the original judgment; Defendant 4 and 5 did not know that the goods he received from Co-Defendant 2 were the hemp, and the judgment of the above defendant was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the second point and the summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2 are unfair because the sentence imposed by the court below against the above defendant et al. (4)

Therefore, it should be seen that Defendant 1’s reasons for appeal are examined as follows: (a) the hemp plant’s act of selling the hemp plant was recognized as being harmful to the national health; and (b) the Defendant was 59 years of age and was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment due to the violation of the Narcotics Act in 1962; and (c) in light of the number of sales proceeds of the hemp plant, the act of selling the hemp plant cannot be used in a sound social sense; and (d) there is sufficient awareness of illegality necessary for the instant crime, and therefore, the above grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

Then, the first point of appeal by Defendant 3, 4, and 5 is examined; in light of the records of this case, the above facts charged by the defendant, etc. can be fully recognized, and otherwise, the grounds of appeal as to the mistake of facts cannot be accepted, since there are no errors of law as pointed out in the arguments in the process of fact-finding by the court below.

However, it is obvious that the original judgment was not clear that the defendant, etc. was guilty on all of the facts constituting an offense, and the summary of the evidence was not specified, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, prior to the judgment on the remaining grounds for appeal, the original judgment on the defendant, etc. cannot be reversed.

Therefore, according to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the original judgment is reversed, and the party members are to render a new judgment after pleading.

Since criminal facts against the defendant, etc. recognized as a member of the party are the same as the time of original adjudication, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the same Act.

(Abstract of Evidence)

1. In the trial records of the court below each statement identical to the facts indicated by the defendant;

1. Statement to the same effect as indicated in each protocol of suspect examination prepared by a prosecutor and judicial police officer for the accused, etc. handling business;

1. Statement to the effect that the judicial police officer's handling of affairs with respect to Nonindicted 1, 2, and 3, etc. is supporting the facts indicated in the judgment;

1. Existing presence of the confiscated hemp plants;

1. Statements that correspond to the previous records of the judgment among notifications given to the defendant 4 prepared by the chief of the public security office;

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

The judgment of the defendant, etc. is so-called, or it falls under each subparagraph of Article 38-2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Control of Dangerous Drugs, and since the defendant 4 has a criminal record falling under repeated crimes, it shall be subject to aggravation of repeated crimes within the limit of the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act pursuant to Article 35 of the same Act, and since the crimes of subparagraphs 2 and 3 are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the same Act, it shall be subject to the provisions of Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act as to 3 of the same Act, and since the nature and circumstances of the crimes are too heavy, it shall be subject to the provisions of Article 2 (C) of the same Act as to 3 of this Act, and the value of the above crimes shall be collected from 10 years of imprisonment, 3 years of imprisonment, 4 years of imprisonment, 4 years of imprisonment, 5 years of imprisonment, 5 years of imprisonment, and 5 years of imprisonment, respectively.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Limited Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)