In case where a narcotics offender is arrested by a naval investigation, whether the prosecution procedure is illegal or not.

Even if public officials or intelligence officers controlling narcotics have the Defendants commit a violation of the Narcotics Act by purchasing narcotics from the Defendants in front of them, if there is no circumstance that the Defendants, who do not have any criminal intent, caused the Defendants to commit the crime, it cannot be said that the Defendants did not commit the so-called crime on the ground of the above facts alone, and that there was a rash in the prosecution procedure.

Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (75 Gohap149)

Of the judgment of the court below, the part on Defendant 1 is reversed.

A person who is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years and six months.

The ninety days of detention days before the sentence of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

Seized hemp 13 kilograms (No. 1) shall be confiscated from Defendant 1.

Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed.

ninety days during the period of detention prior to the imposition of judgment in the trial shall be included in the sentence of the original court.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1’s defense counsel is as follows: first, the defendant did not have committed this case’s indictment No. 1; second, the defendant is merely the intermediary of the hemp plant, which is a damp drug, and on the other hand, the defendant was guilty despite the fact that the defendant was not admissible as evidence obtained through the so-called naval investigation, which is the most trade, and thus, the court below found the defendant guilty. Second, the court below erred by mistake of facts or violation of law that may affect the judgment; second, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable; second, the summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2 is that the defendant contact the foreigner who found the same person at the request of the above defendant 1; and there was no charge of this case, and the court below found the defendant guilty, and there was an error of law by mistake of facts that affected the judgment.

In light of the records, first of all, it is recognized that the evidence duly adopted by the court below is any one or the evidence which has been admissible by legitimate examination of evidence at the court below, and even if Defendant 1's counsel purchased narcotics or damp drugs from Defendant et al. and had Defendant et al. and Defendant et al. and Defendant et al. purchase them in front of the so-called information sources in the U.S. official or U.S. official, as pointed out by Defendant 1, the so-called information sources to control the instant narcotics crime, and to conduct the instant crime, it is not a case where Defendant et al., without any intention to commit the instant crime, caused Defendant et al. to commit the instant crime. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the so-called crime of Defendant et al. solely based on the above facts does not constitute the so-called crime of Defendant et al. (It is difficult to see that the criminal investigation procedure is subject to the intentional criticism of Defendant et al.).

Furthermore, if the above evidence is reviewed in light of the records, it can be sufficiently recognized that each crime of this case by the defendant, etc., as decided by the court below, and even after examining the case records, there is no error of law as pointed out in the process of fact-finding by the court below, and each appeal as to mistake of facts or violation of law cannot be accepted.

However, the original judgment was examined ex officio, and Defendant 1 was a juvenile subject to the Juvenile Act at the time of the original judgment on June 23, 1955, but it is apparent that it had already been adult at the time of the original judgment, so the original judgment which sentenced a punishment on the premise that the above Defendant was a juvenile was not able to maintain as it is, therefore, the original judgment on Defendant 1 cannot be reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed without the necessity to determine the grounds for appeal on the above defendant's grounds of unfair sentencing, and it is decided again after pleading.

The criminal facts of Defendant 1 recognized as a party member and the summary of the evidence are as shown in each corresponding case of the judgment of the court below, and all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The first class of the judgment of the defendant, as to the violation of the Narcotics Act, falls under Articles 60 (1) and 4 of the Narcotics Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 38-2 (1) 2 and Article 5 (2) of the said Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the said Act, the second class of the judgment of the defendant shall select the prescribed limited imprisonment, and each of the crimes in the judgment of the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Since each of the crimes in the judgment of the defendant is a concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the said Act, which are heavier punishment than the punishment imposed on the violation of the Narcotics Act. Since the first class of the judgment of the defendant is a minor who is the first class of the hemp, and there is a reason to consider the fact that the above crime is extremely small quantity of narcotics, the second class of the judgment below shall be included in the confiscation period of the defendant 1 through Article 537 of the said Act.

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

Judges Limited Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)