2015Gohap494, 545 (Joints), 654 (Joints), 698 (Joints), 2016Gohap44 (Joints)

(a) Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence);

(b) Bribery;

(c) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act;

(d) Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment.

1. A. B.

○○ (56 - 1), miscellaneous sales

Residence Busan East-gu

Busan District Court Decision 200

2. A. B.

WOO (58 - 1), cook

Residential Busan Guide-gu

Gyeong-nam, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun

3. A. (c) D.

BUBE (65 - 1), and the police assigned to Busan Port Security Corporation

Residence Busan Southern-gu

Gyeongnam-gu, Gyeongnam-gun

4.2

○○(54-1), clothing sales and agriculture

Housing Gyeongnamcheon-gun group

Standard place of registration, Gyeong-Namcheon Group

5.(a)

○○ (71 - 1) - Non-permanent

Residence and Busan Shipping Daegu

Jeonbuk-si, Magsan

6. A.

○○○ (54 - 1) - Seafarers

Residential Busan District Chief;

Reference domicile Gyeong-gu, Gyeong-gu

Kim Chang-seop (Lawsuits of Prosecution), Lee Jong-hee, Kim Jong-woo (Trial)

Attorney Kim Jong-sung, Lee Jong-hee (for Defendant 1○○○)

Attorney Cha Jong-dae (for the purpose of Defendant Boh-ok)

(B) In order to promote Between the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea, Defendant 1

Attorney Kim Gyeong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Law Firm Square (for the purpose of Defendant Dozoo)

Attorney Jeong Young-hun, Justice Jeon Young-hun, Justice Lee Jin-hun, and Kim Hyun-ju

Attorney Lee Han-ok (Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for the defendant Lee ○-ok)

Attorney Park Jong-young (for the purpose of defendant ○○)

Attorney Kwon Young-sik

March 11, 2016

1. Defendant 13 years of imprisonment with prison labor; 7 years of imprisonment with prison labor; 30, 000, and 00 won in imprisonment with prison labor; 5 years of imprisonment with prison labor; 3 years of imprisonment with prison labor; 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor; 3 years of imprisonment with prison labor; 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor; and 00 won in imprisonment with prison labor; 3 years of imprisonment with prison labor; and 4 years of maximum amount of imprisonment with prison labor.

2. In the event that the above fine is not paid, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse by converting 100,000 won into one day.

3. However, with respect to ○○○, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

4. Among the articles listed in the evidence No. 3336 of the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office’ Office’ 2015, the articles remaining after excluding 5.3gs used for each appraisal among the articles listed in the evidence No. 3336 of the pressure of 2015 shall be confiscated.

5. Defendant 2,10,00,000, and KRW 100, and KRW 100, and KRW 00, in collaboration with Defendant Jeong-○○, Jin○, Lee ○, Lee ○, and ○○○, respectively, are subject to prosecution by each of the following: Defendant 30,00, and KRW 00, and KRW 30,00, and KRW 00, respectively.

6. An amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge against Defendant Jeong-○, YO, YO, ○○, ○○○, and ○○○, and an amount equivalent to the above additional charge, and an amount equivalent to the above fine and the additional charge shall be imposed on Defendant Young-si, and an amount equivalent to the above additional charge.

Facts of crime

【Criminal Power】

On September 13, 2012, Defendant 1, at Suwon District Court, sentenced Defendant 1 year to imprisonment with labor for a crime of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. ( natives) at the Suwon District Court on September 13, 201, and completed the execution of the above punishment at the Busan Detention Center on March 12, 2013.

[Criminal Facts]

1. "2015, 654" and "2015, 698,"

A. Defendant HaO, FO, TO, EO, Maximum, ○

Defendant 1○○○ had a psychotropic drug-related psychotropic drug-related metroopopon (hereinafter referred to as 'copon', 'copon', 'copon', and 'copon', the role of Defendant 1’, the role of Defendant 2, the role of Defendant 2, the Chinese crew who will put the copon in the transport of copon, and the crew in charge of the transport of copon in China, was to have the copon from the above copon to the transport of copon and to have the copon imported from the Popon to the Republic of Korea, and the role of Defendant 2, the role of Defendant 1, the Chinese passenger who will take charge of the copon from the above copon to the copon and importing the copon into the Busan Port by taking the copon from the above copon to the copon.

On December 2014, 2014, Defendant Woo-○ introduced Defendant Woo-○ and Defendant YO to Defendant Woo-○, who will play a role in transporting philopon from a Chinese upper port to a Busan New Port, and Defendant Woo-○ and Defendant Woo-○. Defendant Woo-○ notified Defendant Woo-○ and Defendant Woo-○○ of the method of scoponing philopon to Defendant Woo-○.

On December 2, 2014, Defendant Jeong-○ issued approximately 21,000g of philophones from Chinese people on his name-free Chinese books to Defendant Ho-○, who reads the samples of philophones to Defendant Ho-○, and Defendant Ho-○ confirmed the condition of philophones’ samples by hanging philophones in the water.

Defendant Jeong-○ continued to deliver 21,00g philophones to a medium-sized domestic transport volume in China, and the above medium-sized domestic transport volume of the said philophones to a n&D in China.

On December 20, 2014, Defendant ○○ and ○○○ entered the new-line wharf located in the Busan Southern-dong, Busan-gu, on December 22, 2014, with a cover of approximately 21,000 gramphones from LWD to LWD’s opon, and with a cover of approximately 21,00 gramphones, in accordance with the direction of Defendant Jeong○○○ and ○○.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to import approximately 21,000 gramphones, psychotropic drugs, even though they are not the narcotics handler.

B. B. Between the Defendant and the Defendant

The defendant is the police assigned for special guard who manages seven wharfs, such as the Busan Coast Guard and wharfs, and performs surveillance duties to ensure that illegal activities do not occur, such as security screening of the persons or vehicles having access to port facilities, light and unauthorized access prevention, and the introduction and removal of freight and vessel supplies.

On December 2, 2014, the Defendant: “The ○○○ and the ○○○, the crew of the Defendant, are expected to conceal the bank from the upper port of the upper port of the instant vessel and hold it as the Busan New Line loan broker in order to take the said bank out of the wharf, taking advantage of the status of the commander of the second district register in charge of the cost of the new vessel loan, the Defendant received the proposal and accepted it.

On or around December 22, 2014, the Defendant 1: (a) opened the ○○ and the ○○○○○○○ through a set of passenger cars at the front of the instant new bus wharf; (b) opened the said car at the Defendant’s 47rack line; and (c) opened the said house to ○○ in front of the said new bus wharf at the maid line; (d) opened the said house to ○○; (e) opened the said house from ○○ in cash at her own seat; and (e) opened the said bank at 30,000 won at her own seat; and (e) opened the Defendant’s Yorle to 10,000,000 on or around December 29 and December 30, 2014; and (e) opened the account number from 200,000 to 35,000,0000 won on or around 25, 2014; and (e) deposited the Defendant’s account under the name of 15.

Accordingly, the defendant, after accepting a bribe in relation to the public official's duties, pretended to commit an unlawful act and acquire or dispose of criminal proceeds.

(c) Defendant 10O, SO

As stated in the above paragraph (b) above, Defendant Woo-○ made a solicitation to the effect that “I would leave I would like to go out of the wharf,” and Defendant Woo-○ delivered KRW 30,000 in cash in return for the release of I would like to go I would like to go I would like to go I would like to go I would like to go I would like to go I would like to go I would like to go I would like to go I would like to go I would like to go I would like to go I would like to go I would like to leave the wharf.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to give a bribe in relation to the duties of public officials.

2. 2015 Highly 494, 2015 Highly 545: Defendant JeongO, femaleO, and chip ○○;

Defendant 1○○, in contact with Chinese people who sell philophones, was able to check the condition of philophones by means of taking the philophones in contact with Chinese people who sell philophones, and Defendant 2: (a) confirmed the condition of philophones by means of taking the philophones from Chinese people in the name of Chinese people; and (b) Defendant 200 decided to keep the philophones from China to Llophones by means of taking the transportation of philophones from China to Llophones; and (c) imported the buphones from China to Llophones by taking the responsibility of delivering it to Defendant 20.

Defendant 1, ○○ instructed Defendant 1 to ○○ to build a philopon from a Chinese person on his name, check the quality of the philopon, etc., and then issue an order to Chinese transport china to the middle-sea transport chil, and to build a philopon from a domestic transport chip to Defendant 1’s female transport chil, and to deliver it to her.

Accordingly, on July 2015 and August 2015, 2015, Defendant ○○ received from a Chinese person on the street before the KFC in which the garnisher was located in China, and confirmed the status of the philopon by administering the philopon in the above KFC toilet by drinking it on the cream, and purchased two bags necessary for the transport of philopon to Chinese person on the above name, and delivered them to a Chinese person on the cream in China by using two gramlopons in which 18,30g of philopon was divided from the Chinese person.

On August 8, 2015, at around 00: 19: At around 00, Defendant Shoo, on the street, divided into about 18, 225, two bags containing about 30gs from the domestic transport 19 vinyls, and concealed it in the cargo line, the cargo line, the passenger room, and arrived at the Pyeongtaek-gu Man-gu Man-gu Man-si, Pyeongtaek-si, Pyeongtaek-si.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to import approximately 18 and 30 grams of psychotropic drugs, even though they are not the narcotics handler, and Defendant chip ○○ administered phiphones.

3. "2016, 44": The fixed number of defendants.

On May 14, 2015, the Defendant, at around 00: 00, 1,322 grams on the street in front of the building located in Busan Dong-dong, 93 - 44, Kim Il-dong.

Accordingly, even if the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, he received psychotropic drugs-related philophones. Summary of evidence

“ 2015 Gohap494,”

1. In the first and third trial records, each statement made by the defendant 1-O and n-O in the trial records;

1. Acquisition of information on and reporting on the arrest of the offender charged with philophones;

1. A criminal investigation report and accompanying documents (the sequence 2, 6, 9, 17, 18 of the evidence list in 2015, 494 of the case);

1. Protocol of seizure (Evidence Nos. 3 of evidence in 2015, 494);

1. A report on the results of analysis and a return (Notice of the results of legal chemical appraisal);

" 2015 Gohap545"

1. Part of the second trial records of this Court 2015 Gohap545 case prior to the consolidation of Defendant ○○ in the second trial records

Note :

1. The entry of part of the witness ○○ in the fifth trial record; and

1. Copy of the judgment of Busan District Court 93 High Court 1623; and

1. A criminal investigation report (the No. 11, 17, 20, 28 of the evidence list in the 2015 Highest 545 case);

1. Request for appraisal (Maternation);

1. A detailed statement of entry or departure;

" 2015, 654

1. The highest defendant in the protocol of the sixth public trial and the protocol of the public trial in cases of high-liability 654 of this Court before consolidation;

○ Statement

1. In the fourth and sixth protocol of the trial, the statements made by the defendant Ma-O, Brontal, and the statements made by this ○;

1. Investigation report and accompanying documents (Nos. 4, 5, 15 through 17, 22, 23, 29 of the evidence list in 2015, 654, 5, 15 through 17, 22, 29) "2015, 698"

【No. 1-A of the Judgment】

1. The description and avoid of each of the Defendant’s full ○○ in the 4th and 6th trial records, and the statements made by ○○, and ○○○, respectively.

Statements on each part of Ma○○ and Mo○○

1. The description of the witness ○○ in the fifth trial record, and the description of the witness ○○ full-time statement; and

1. Statement by the prosecution against Defendant 2, 200, and 300,000,000 won of the evidence list 8)

Of those, Defendant 1’s statement and records related to Defendant 1’s Ma○

1. The investigation report and accompanying documents (the sequence 3, 4, 17, 21 through 23, 29, 30, 20, 30 of the evidence list in 2015, 698;

47, 52, 53)

1. A copy of the current status of entry into and departure from Korea by individual (○○○)

[Article 1-2(b)(3) of the Judgment]

1. Statements made by the Defendant 1, ○○ in the 4th and 6th trial records, and the statements made by the Defendant 2.

1. Statement of the witness ○○ and the highest ○○ in the fifth protocol of the trial;

1. The investigation report and accompanying documents (the sequence 5, 6, 9, 11, 21 through 23, 34 of the evidence list of 2015, 698, 2015, 698;

35, 39)

1. A family relation certificate and marriage relation certificate, a certified copy thereof, and an account in the name of a joint principal of a family;

2016, 44

1. Statement made by Defendant 1 at ○○ in the seventh trial records;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination and statement of Kim Il-chul

1. A report on investigation (a list of evidence in the case 2016 high-class44 Nos. 1, 7, 12);

1. A copy or photograph of the seizure record;

1. Copy of a statement of narcotics appraisal;

“A previous conviction in the judgment,”

Each criminal records (○○○○), investigation reports (Evidence 14, 2016 ranking Nos. 14, 444 of the evidence list of 2015Gohap494 of the case), and a detailed statement of expropriation (Evidence 43 of the evidence list of 2015Gohap698 of the case)

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

(a) Defendant 10: Article 58(1)6 and Article 4(1) of the Narcotics Control Act

No. 1, Article 2 subparag. 3 (b), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of the importation of philophones, each limited-term line

x) Articles 133(1), 131(1), and 30(a) of the Criminal Act (the point of offering of bribe and the choice of imprisonment);

Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, Article 4 (1) 1, Article 2 (3) of the Narcotics Control Act

(b) (Admononing and Receiving Handphones, Selection of Imprisonment)

(b) Defendant 00: Articles 58(1)6 and 4(1) of the Narcotics Control Act

No. 1, Article 2 subparag. 3 (b), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of the importation of philophones, each limited-term line

x) Articles 133(1), 131(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of offering of bribe and the choice of imprisonment)

C. Bilateral duty of Defendant: Article 2(1)3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; the Criminal Act

131(1) and 129(1) of this Act, Article 10(2) of the Police Assigned for Special Guard Act

The punishment of fines pursuant to Article 2 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the number of offenses.

Article 3(1)1 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment, etc. of the Concealment of Criminal Proceeds.

most of them, and choice of imprisonment

(d) Defendant ○○: Articles 58(1)6 and 4(1) of the Narcotics Control Act

No. 1, Article 2 subparag. 3 (b), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of the importation of philophones, each limited-term line

x) Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, and 2 of the Narcotics Control Act

Article 3 (Descopon Medications and Selection of Imprisonment)

(e) Defendant ○○○: Articles 58(1)6 and 4(1) of the Narcotics Control Act

Subparagraph 1, Article 2 Subparag. 3 (b), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of smuggling importation and the choice of limited imprisonment)

(f) Defendant ○○○○: Articles 58(1)6 and 4(1) of the Narcotics Control Act

Subparagraph 1, Article 2 Subparag. 3 (b), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of smuggling importation and the choice of limited imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Defendant 10: Article 35 of the Criminal Act.

Article 42 of the Criminal Act shall apply to the crime of violation of the rate ( natives) within the limit of proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1-○: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

The Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. due to the smuggling import of lightphones on December 22, 2014, which is most severe.

Aggravated concurrent crimes within the limit of the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act with regard to the punishment specified in the crime against arbitr (finite)

(b) Defendant Leisure○: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act / [Punishment and punishment]

The Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. due to the smuggling import of lightphones on December 22, 2014, which is most severe.

A. (f.e., Crimes and Concurrent Crimes)

C. Before the defendant 2: the first sentence of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act are no longer applicable;

imprisonment with prison labor provided for in the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

To the extent that the long-term punishment for the two crimes is aggregated]

(d) Defendant ○○: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act / [the punishment and penal penalty]

The Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. due to the smuggling import of lightphones on December 22, 2014, which is most severe.

A. (f.e., Crimes and Concurrent Crimes)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

A. Before the Defendant’s joint interest: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act (the following grounds for sentencing)

favorable circumstances)

B. Defendant ○○○○ and ○○○: Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the following sentencing are imposed:

Considering the favorable circumstances in the past)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Bright: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant ○○: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (General Considerations favorable to the reasons for sentencing as follows)

1. Confiscation;

Defendant WOO: the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

1. Additional collection:

A. Defendant 1○○, OO, chi○, ○○, ○○, and ○○○: the Narcotics Control Act

67 (proviso)

· Grounds for the calculation of additional charges

Defendant HaO2, MaO, Ma○, Ma○○○: The aforesaid Defendants around December 22, 2014

21,000 grams per 2,100,000 grams ( = 21,000 grams per 21,000 grams)

100, 000 Won 3)

Defendant ○○: Chophone 21,000 gramphones imported on December 22, 2014

2. The price of philophones administered at the end of July 2015 or at the beginning of August 2015, 100, 000, 000 won + the price of philophones administered at the beginning of August 2015.

100, 000 won 4

B. Bilateral duty of Defendant: the latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Determination as to the assertion by Defendant YO and defense counsel

A. The assertion

With respect to the crime described in paragraph (1) of Article 1 of the judgment, Defendant Ann○ was not guilty of this part of the facts charged. This part of the facts charged is not guilty. This part of the judgment below, on the following grounds: (a) Defendant LOO only intended to introduce and request the cooking or crew of a ship operating in China to YOO upon request of YO; and (b) the introduction of this ○○ and ○○○○; and (c) he did not fully recognize that he carries

B. Determination

Article 30 of the Criminal Act provides that two or more co-principals jointly commit a crime. In order to establish a co-principal, a subjective requirement is required to commit a crime through functional control based on a common intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1274, Apr. 10, 2008). In addition, a conspiracy is not required under the law for two or more co-offenders who jointly commit a crime, but is a combination of intent to realize a crime by combining two or more persons jointly processing a crime. Although there was no master process, if a combination of doctors is made in order or implicitly through two or more persons, a conspiracy relationship is established. Even if some of the co-offenders did not directly share part of the constituent acts, it is not recognized that 10 or more co-principals have contributed to a crime, such as the status of the two co-principal, role, control over the crime, or control over the progress of the crime, but 2010 or more co-principals.

In light of the following facts, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is reasonable to view that Defendant Woo-○ was engaged in functional control through substantial contributions by introducing ○○○, ○○, and transport books in China (hereinafter referred to as “one-day L&C”) to Defendant Woo-○, etc., under the recognition of Defendant Woo-○, with respect to the crime of smuggling-on-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con’s.

(1) At the prosecutor's office, 2014, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga,

(2) In this court, ○○ stated that in return for introducing ○○, etc. to Defendant do so, ○○ was paid an amount equivalent to the amount equivalent to the amount corresponding to ○○○ in a case, and ○○ also recognized that ○○ was paid a certain amount of money from ○○ in return for introducing ○○, etc.

(3) While introducing ○○○, etc. to ○○○○, Defendant do so to the effect that “I would pay KRW 30 million when I want to take off the bank from the wharf to ○○○○○,” the crew, for the purpose of easily taking off the smuggling imported philopon.

(4) On June 2014, ○○ stated that even around 2014, he/she offered a proposal that he/she had only 8 km from Defendant doclock from Japan, but refused to make a statement at an investigative agency, such as making a statement (the 311 pages of the investigation record as above) from the investigative agency to this court, and that he/she had consistently made a proposal that Defendant Sclock imported clock from China or Japan several times before committing the crime described in paragraph (a) of Article 1 of the judgment, and that he/she made a proposal that Defendant Sclock imported clickphones from China or Japan. In addition, ○○ stated that he/she continued to clock ○○ in spite of his/her refusal to make a proposal, she made a statement that clock continued to clock ○ by making it inevitable for clock to make clock and make it inevitable for ○ to make it available.

(5) On December 2014, 2014, as from the point of view on the trade name in the Dongdong-gu, Busan, SO was in the same place as YO at the time YO made a proposal for the smuggling import to ○○○ and ○○○○, and in that place, YO made a contact with the ○○○○○○ on the basis of communication.

2. Determination as to Defendant Dop○ and defense counsel’s assertion

A. The assertion

With respect to the crimes described in paragraphs (a) and (2) of Article 1 of the judgment, Defendant Doh○ entered China for his own business, and Defendant Doh○○○○○○’s request merely verified the condition of philopon by administering philopon without any consideration from the mind of her friendship to verify the condition of philopon and transporting two philopon. Defendant Doh○ did not fully recognize that Doh○ intended to commit the crime of importing philopon into the Republic of Korea or to import philopon into the Republic of Korea. Accordingly, this part of the charge is not guilty.

Even though Defendant ○○ was aware that ○○○ was an intention to import philophones into the Republic of Korea, the mere act of checking the status of philophones is merely an act of aiding and abetting rather than an act of co-principal.

B. Determination

1) Whether there was a combination of intent to realize a crime of smuggling importation between Defendant Doz○ and Maz○○○○

In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 1 and 2 had a combination of common intent to realize each of the instant philopon imports between Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2.

(1) At the time of the instant crime, Defendant ○○ had the history of serving several punishments, such as punishment, for a crime related to narcotics, etc., and thus, he was aware that the Defendant could not avoid severe punishment once again resulting in a crime related to narcotics. In such a situation, the mere fact that Defendant ○○ committed a crime of administering phiphones from the mind of beecising her name to commit the crime of administering phiphones is contrary to the common sense.

(2) Defendant 2 was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for 2 years with the Busan District Court 93 Gohap1623 for the reason that Defendant 1 conspired with Defendant 1,00, and was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for 2 years with labor for 13 years with the Busan District Court 93 Gohap1623, and for 3 years with the suspension of execution. As such, at the time of receiving an instruction to administer a philopon from 100 on July 2015, 2015, Defendant 20 was fully aware that ○○ was a person who commits a crime related to philopon.

(3) Defendant 1 asserted that Defendant 1’s chip ○ was toward China’s luminous low-speed for the purpose of purchasing chip bags and clothing on December 7, 2014 and July 18, 2015. However, considering that Defendant 1’s chip ○○’s business trip date and the date and time of the instant crime are consistent on two consecutive occasions in accordance with the empirical rule, it cannot be obtainable in view of the fact that Defendant 1’s chip ○ on December 7, 2014. Defendant 1 chip ○ was boarding the same chip ○ at the departure of Korea on December 7, 2014; Defendant 1’s chip ○○ on December 7, 2014 and Defendant 1’s chip ○○ on July 18, 2015 to verify the authenticity of Defendant 1’s chip ○ or ○○.

(4) After gathering the awareness of arrest of ○○○○○, Defendant 1 committed an escape, such as changing mobile phone numbers and transferring stoves or telecoms, etc.

2) Whether the crime by Defendant ○○ is mere aiding and abetting

Joint action, which is the requisite for the establishment of a joint principal, is recognized even if it has shared the function that is essential for realizing the result according to the whole plan.

In light of the fact that it is inevitable to confirm the authenticity and degree of the relevant philophones prior to the importation of the philophones in light of the fact that it is difficult to confirm the authenticity and degree of the philophones in a case where the philophones are carried out with a philophones using a philophones, which is not a philophones. Furthermore, it is reasonable to view that the act of confirming the authenticity and degree of the philophones prior to the importation of the philophones constitutes an act of functional action that is essential to realize the result of the crime of smuggling importation, not an act of aiding and abetting the crime of smuggling importation. Furthermore, around July 2015, Defendant chi○○○ purchased two philophones to transport the philophones to China, and the act of transporting the philophones by being carried with a philophones by being carried with another philos.

C. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant Dop○○ and his defense counsel’s aforementioned assertion on different premise is without merit, given that Defendant Dop-○ and his defense counsel engaged in functional practice, which is an essential element for the crime of smuggling import of each of the instant phipphones. Thus, Defendant Dop-○ and his defense counsel cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime of smuggling import of each of the instant phipphones.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant fixed-scale ○○

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to 50 years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Basic and concurrent crimes 1: Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to the smuggling importation of phiphones

[Determination of Type] Type 3 of Import, Export, Manufacture, etc. of Narcotics Crime Group (Narcotic drugs, perfumea (b), etc.)

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations: organizational or professional crimes, previous convictions in the same kind and suspended execution for not more than three years

more than 1)

[Scope of Recommendation] Special Priority: Imprisonment for 5 years to 12 years

2) Concurrent crimes 2: Bribery

[Determination of Type] Bribery Crime Case> Class 2 (3 million won to 5 million won)

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations: Positive Briberys, Impropers, Impropers or Illegals

Cases related to conduct

[Scope of Recommendation] Special Priority: Imprisonment with prison labor from one year to four years;

3) Results of application of the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment for 5 years to 19 years ( = 12 years + (12 years x 1/2) +

(4 year and June 】 1/3)

(c) Determination of sentence;

The crime of narcotics, such as the crime of this case, is not easy to detect due to its characteristics, and is likely to cause negative impacts on society as well as on high risk of recidivism. Moreover, the importation of chophones is very important for simple medication because it is likely to cause additional crimes. 40,547gs ( = 18, 225 + 21,00gs + 1,322gs) of chophones that are imported and received by the defendant, + 21,00gs + 1,322gs) are very large quantity in terms of retail sales, and the defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment for the same kind of crime and has been sentenced for it, and it does not require the criminal defendant to be punished for a repeated crime of this case even though 1 year has not passed since 3 years have passed since he/she was sentenced to imprisonment for the violation of the Narcotics Control Act.

However, under the circumstances favorable to the defendant, the fact that the defendant recognized the whole crime of this case as well as reflects his mistake, and the fact that honphones imported as shown in Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the defendant were seized and actually not distributed, etc. The defendant's age, environment, character and conduct, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be comprehensively taken into account, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered by the order, taking into account all the various factors shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, environment

2. Defendant Female

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to 5 years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Basic and concurrent crimes 1: Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence)

[Determination of Type] Export, Import, Manufacture, etc. of Narcotics Crime Group (Narcotic drugs, flavoring A. (b) and (b), etc.)

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations: organizational or professional crimes

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation: Imprisonment for 5 years to 8 years

2) Concurrent crimes 2: Bribery

[Determination of Type] Bribery Crime Case> Class 2 (3 million won to 5 million won)

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations: Positive Briberys, Impropers, Impropers or Illegals

Cases related to conduct

[Scope of Recommendation] Special Priority: Imprisonment with prison labor from one year to four years;

3) Results of application of the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment from 5 years to 13 years ( = 8 years + (8 years + x 1/2) +

(4 year and June 】 1/3)

(c) Determination of sentence;

The crime of narcotics, such as the crime of this case, is not easy to detect due to its characteristics, and is likely to cause negative impacts on society as well as on high risk of recidivism. Moreover, the importation of chophones is very serious because it is likely to cause the spread of narcotics and additional crimes caused thereby, and thus, the quality of the crime is limited to simple medication. The defendant's 39,225g ( = 18,2250g + 21,00g + 9,257, 100,000 won in retail, and the amount is very large. Considering that the defendant's transportation volume is a transport volume, the defendant introduced ○○○, the largest ○○○ and the port security register to the defendant, and the degree of his participation in the transport of chophones directly, and the fact that the defendant does not violate his obligation to punish part of his chophones.

However, under the circumstances where the defendant confessions a part of the crime, there is no previous charge for the defendant, there is no record of criminal punishment heavier than the suspension of execution, the contribution to the arrest of the defendant Jeong○, an accomplice, to a certain part of the arrest of the defendant Jeong○○, and the fact that the penphone imported closely as stated in paragraph (2) of the decision of the defendant is seized and has not been distributed actually as the whole, etc., shall be considered as favorable to the defendant, and other factors of sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, such as the age, environment, character and conduct, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered, comprehensively taking into account

3. Between Before the defendant and the defendant

A. Scope of applicable sentences under the law: Imprisonment of two years to six months, and fine of 30,000, and fine of 000,000

75,000,00 won

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Basic crime: Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

[Determination of Type] Type 3 of Acceptance of Bribery (not less than three million won but less than five million won)

[Special Contributors] Aggravations: Impropers related to Acceptance of Bribery

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation: Imprisonment for 4 years to 6 years

2) Results of applying the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for at least four years (the above basic crime and the sentencing criteria shall be set);

Crimes of violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment are competition in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Since the lower limit of sentencing is in a criminal relationship, the lower limit of sentencing shall be based on the lower limit of the range of punishment on the sentencing criteria for the basic crime for which the sentencing criteria are set.

(c) Determination of sentence;

The Defendant, as the second district commander of the Busan Port Security Corporation, violated his duties and committed the instant crime. Considering the fact that the nature of the crime was bad in light of the method and content of the crime, etc., the Defendant’s crime is seriously damaged due to the Busan Port Security Corporation’s interest in port facilities, fairness in the cost and security work, and public trust, the amount of the accepted bribery is considerably high, and the Defendant pretended about the acquisition of criminal proceeds in order to conceal the accepted bribery.

However, considering the facts that the defendant recognized the crime of this case as well as reflects his mistake, and that the defendant has no previous record of and no record of criminal punishment heavier than suspended execution, etc., the circumstances favorable to the defendant shall be considered, and the defendant's age, environment, character and conduct, motive and number of crimes, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be comprehensively taken into account, and the sentencing factors specified in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered.

4. Defendant chip ○○

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to 5 years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Basic and concurrent crimes 1: Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flaging) due to the importation of phiphones

[Determination of Type] Export, Import, Manufacture, etc. of Narcotics Crime Group (Narcotic drugs, flavoring A. (b) and (b), etc.)

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations: organizational or professional crimes

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation: Imprisonment for 5 years to 8 years

2) Concurrent crimes 2: A crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flaging) due to the administration of phiphones.

[Determination of Type 3] Medication, simple possession, etc. of a narcotic crime group (b)

【No Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area: Imprisonment for 10 months to 2 years;

3) Results of application of the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment from 5 years to 12 years ( = 8 years + (8 years x 1/2) +

(2) yearx1/3)

(c) Determination of sentence;

Considering the fact that the crime of narcotics, such as the crime of this case, is not easy to detect due to its characteristics, and is likely to cause a negative impact on society as well as on high risk of recidivism, and that it is more likely to cause additional crimes due to the spread of narcotics from phiphones and their additional crimes, the crime of simple medication is very serious. The defendant's 39,225g ( = 18, 225g + 21,00g + 9,257, 100 won in retail, and the amount of retail is very large, and the defendant has a history of having been sentenced to punishment for the same kind of crime.

However, the following facts are considered as favorable circumstances for the Defendant: (a) the Defendant led to a certain crime; (b) the Defendant’s participation in the Defendant’s act of importing smuggling of this case is relatively insignificant compared to other accomplices; and (c) the fact that the closed-import penphone, as described in paragraph (2) of the judgment of the Defendant, has been seized in whole and has not been distributed actually, etc.; and (d) the Defendant’s age, environment, character and conduct, motive and number of crimes, as well as all the sentencing factors indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively considered.

5. Defendant Lee ○-○

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months to fifteen years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Type] Export, Import, Manufacture, etc. of Narcotics Crime Group (Narcotic drugs, flavoring A. (b) and (b), etc.)

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations: organizational or professional crimes

Reduction element: Self-denunciation and important investigation cooperation;

[General Sentencings] Mitigations: there is no record of criminal punishment.

[Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area (Extent of Territorial Selection): Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six years to five years

(c) Criteria for suspension of execution;

[Main reasons for the most important reference] The positive factor: Cooperation in important investigation, self-denunciation, and no record of criminal punishment;

Illegal Elements: Systematic or Professional Crimes

[Reasons for General Reference] Pro rata element: Serious reflective element

(d) Determination of sentence;

The crime of narcotics, such as the crime of this case, is not easy to detect due to its characteristics, and is likely to have a negative impact on society as well as on the risk of recidivism, and is more likely to cause additional crimes due to the spread of narcotics from phiphones and their additional crimes, and thus, the crime of simple medication is very serious in nature. Considering the fact that retailing approximately approximately KRW 4,956,00,000 is very high in quantity, it is necessary to punish the defendant strictly.

However, the following facts are considered as favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant’s active cooperation in the investigation, such as: (b) the fact that the Defendant was seriously against the Defendant’s criminal act and voluntarily surrenders to the investigative agency; (c) the fact that the Defendant retired from the workplace that was going to prevent the Defendant from committing an additional crime; and (d) accompanying the police to the drug smuggling site; and (c) the fact that there was no record of criminal punishment; and (d) the fact that there was no record of criminal punishment, etc.; (c) the Defendant’s age, environment, character and conduct, motive and number of the crimes; and (d)

6. Defendant Maximum ○○

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months to fifteen years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Type] Type 3 of Import, Export, Manufacture, etc. of Narcotics Crime Group (Narcotic drugs, perfumea (b), etc.)

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations: organizational or professional crimes

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation: Imprisonment for 5 years to 8 years

(c) Determination of sentence;

The crime of narcotics, such as the crime of this case, is not easy to detect due to its characteristics, and is likely to have a negative impact on society as well as on the risk of recidivism, and is more likely to cause additional crimes due to the spread of narcotics from phiphones and their additional crimes, and thus, the crime of simple medication is very serious in nature. Considering the fact that retailing approximately approximately KRW 4,956,00,000 is very high in quantity, it is necessary to punish the defendant strictly.

However, given that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects his mistake, and that there is no record of criminal punishment heavier than the suspended sentence, etc. that the Defendant did not have the previous charge and did not have any record of criminal punishment, the circumstances favorable to the Defendant shall be considered, and the Defendant’s age, environment, character and conduct, motive and number of the instant crimes, including the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the overall sentencing factors specified in the instant records and arguments shall be determined lower than the lower limit of the recommended sentence, comprehensively taking into account the following factors:

Part of innocence - Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (influence) by Defendant Bright

1. Summary of the facts charged

On December 2, 2014, the Defendant: “The ○○○ and ○○○, a seafarer of the Republic of Korea, are scheduled to build a philopon at a port above the Republic of China, and carry the said vessel as a Busan New Line loan broker, and the Defendant was able to carry the said bank out of the wharf by taking advantage of the status of the commander of the second district register, who is in charge of the cost of the new Line loan, and accepted the proposal.

On December 22, 2014, the Defendant: (a) opened at the front of the instant new line wharf, the lower court: (b) opened the door, which contains approximately approximately KRW 21,000 g of ○○ and the instant o○○-ro-vehicle 21,000, in the front of the said new line wharf; and (c) opened the said door in the between the Defendant’s 47rdr and the instant passenger vehicle; (d) operated the said vehicle, and (e) opened the door, from one to another, set up at the front of the said new line customs office located adjacent to the said new line wharf, to ○○, containing approximately 21,00g of the said gatephone.

Accordingly, even though the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, the Defendant received psychotropic drugs, written notes. 2. Defendant’s assertion

It was known that precious metals, etc. were contained in the block received from ○○ and ○○○○, and was entirely aware of the fact that philophones were contained in the block.

3. Determination

The establishment of facts constituting a crime in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have such convictions as to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the name of a prosecutor does not sufficiently reach the extent that such convictions are to be ensured, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant, even though there is contradictions in the defendant's assertion or defense or incompetences, such as where the defendant's assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable (Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823 Decided August 21, 2001).

B. In light of the above, we find it difficult to find out that the Defendant’s 10,00,000 won was paid in return for the release of the Defendant’s 1 to the wharf. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s 100,000 won was 30,000,000 won in return for the release of the Defendant’s 1 to the wharf, and there was a request to do so more than 10,000, and the Defendant’s 10,000 made a request to do so. Defendant’s 200,000 stated that there was tobacco inside the bank at the time when the first investigation was conducted by the prosecution, but the Defendant’s statement was reversed that there was a liquid or gold in the bank. In light of the above, there was a doubt that the Defendant’s 200,000,000 won was written in the instant bank.

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court and the record, it is difficult to view that there is no room to consider that the above somewhat doubtful circumstance alone was aware of the fact that philophone was included in the door received by Bright, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(1) Defendant 1 stated that it was consistent from the prosecutor’s office to this court that he did not inform him of what kind of things was included in the Defendant’s house, and that it was entirely known to the Blue House of Blue House.

(2) In addition, it is stated that, even if Defendant B’s request for release from the wharf to the wharf, it was consistent from the inspection to the present court that Defendant B’s request was not made to inform her of what kind of goods were inside the room. In addition, it stated that Defendant B’s request was made to her what kind of goods the Defendant would be pushed down, but did not her philopon (2015Da698 of the Investigation Record of the case No. 468).

(3) However, since the amount received from the prosecutor's office and the court of law is large, the defendant made a statement to the effect that "I would know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to receive in return for it. However, it is merely a abstract statement that I would know that I would like to know that I would like to receive in return.

(4) In light of the fact that there is a high risk of being subject to disciplinary action or criminal punishment upon the detection of a product other than a philopon, the mere fact that the bank received the price for shipping out to the outside of the wharf is a large amount of money or a request for a change thereof cannot be deemed as having been aware of the fact that the product located within the bank was a philopon.

(5) Defendant B/L recognized that the goods in the bank were illegally carried in to the Republic of Korea. However, in order to establish a crime of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fluence) due to the smuggling import of philophones, Defendant B/L needs to be aware at least of the fact that the goods in the bank are philophones. However, it cannot be said that Defendant B/L was aware of the fact that the goods were carried in simply illegally.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty of a crime violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) at the time of the sale of a trademark

Justices Kim Jin-chul

Judges Shin Jae-ia

Judges Eslives

1) Although the indictment contains "Article 4 (1) 2" in the indictment, it shall be corrected because it is obvious that it is a clerical error.

2) Defendant Jeong ○○ on May 14, 2015: (a) on May 14, 2015, the 1,322 grams on the fluoralop 1,322 grams on Kim Il-young, U.S. District Court 2015

Since the decision seems to have been confiscated in 1149, it is not to be collected separately.

3) For the purpose of the proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act, the value of the narcotics to be collected in addition to the value of the ordinary transaction in the market.

It means that the calculation must be based on the price of the prior public notice (Supreme Court Decision 83Do1927 delivered on September 13, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 83Do1927 delivered on September 13, 198),

Court Decision 91Do352 delivered on May 28, 1991, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do352 delivered on May 28, 199), and the time most adjacent to the date of this decision

Busan, a place for committing a crime of smuggling import pursuant to "No. 2015" published "No. 100,000 per gram" wholesale of phiphones in Busan, which is a place for committing a crime of smuggling import.

shall be calculated on the basis of

4) The standard for “the monthly trend of narcotics” is 100,000 won per philophones on September 2015.

5) “The monthly trend of narcotics, etc.” on the national average of philophones in September 2015 is 236,000 won per gram; hereinafter the same shall apply.