(a) Whether the act of extracting a white-cultural finished product in a state of color is an act of manufacturing psychotropic drugs as provided for in the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act by using a method of heating a yellow liquid cropia containing cryp components (affirmative)

(b) The number of crimes in cases where the finished product is stored in the ground in liquid paper paper manufactured at the time of manufacturing the sericultural finished product (=a concurrent crime) and the finished product was manufactured in the above semi-finished product after about one year and nine months;

A. The pharmaceutical products manufacturing column includes not only the chemical modification or refining of raw materials by the chemical method, but also the process that does not cause any chemical change. The act of extracting cropic products in a white solid state through the third process of heating in a certain temperature using daily alcohol, etc., which contains cropic ingredients in the cropic field, is required to a certain degree of technology in the method of heating, etc., and the act of extracting cropic products is also deemed the act of manufacturing psychotropic drugs as defined in the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act, as well as the act of refining and processing drugs, since it is also deemed that the cropicing process of drugs is not the same as the act of manufacturing psychotropic drugs as defined in the psychotropic Drugs Control Act.

(b) In the case where a liquid paper paper is buried in the ground the co-finished product made in a liquid paper as well as the co-offender at the request of a person, etc., other than co-offenders in the process of manufacturing, if the finished product is manufactured together with the above semi-finished product after about one year and nine months from the date of manufacturing, comprehensive crimes cannot be deemed to be committed. Thus, concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act should be classified as concurrent crimes.

Articles 2(1), 4(1), and 40 of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act; Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Do233 Delivered on July 8, 1975

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Ho-ho et al.

Busan High Court Decision 90No917 delivered on November 22, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

With respect to Defendant 1, 41 days under confinement after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

1. As to Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

When examining the evidence of the first instance court as cited by the court below in light of the records, the defendant can fully recognize the crime of manufacturing the psychotropic drugs listed in the first instance court's strike at the time of the first trial, and there is no error of violation of the rules of evidence as alleged by the theory of lawsuit in the

Article 40 (1) 4, Article 4 (1), Article 2 (1), Article 40 (1) 4 of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act provides that a person who is not a psychotropic drug handler shall be punished for the manufacture of psychotropic drugs under the same Act, such as Mesacules or a mixture of substances containing such substances (the same shall apply to the cases under the Act before amendment by Act No. 4125 of April 1, 1989). The calculation of drugs to meet the general demand for manufacturing medicines shall include not only chemical transformation or refining of drugs but also processing that does not cause any chemical change. According to the records, it shall be deemed that the above finished products are not finished products but also finished products extracted from such finished products in the form of 3-year cryptym content as stated in the judgment of the court below, and thus, it shall not be deemed that the cryp of finished products are non-finished products so that they can be extracted from such finished products in the form of cryp content as stated in the law.

In the same purport, it is right and proper that the court below applied Article 40 (1) 4 of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act to the crime of strike 1 of the judgment against the defendant and applied it to the above 1-Ga crime, etc. as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. All arguments are groundless.

2. As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal

Examining the evidence of the first instance judgment in comparison with the record, the court may fully recognize the defendant's crime as stated in the judgment, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit and no violation of the rules of evidence, and the grounds of unfair sentencing for less than 10 years are not legitimate grounds of appeal. All arguments are groundless.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and 41 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)