2018Gohap1065 Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (marijuana)

A

Preliminary (prosecution) and a new trial

Law Firm Oun, Law Firm

Attorney Lee Dong-hee

May 7, 2019

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

Criminal facts

On February 7, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to one year for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. at the Busan District Court on February 7, 2017, and completed the execution of the above sentence in the Jin prison on February 11, 2017.

The Defendant conspired to import marijuana into the Republic of Korea, along with names and unclaimed boxes in B, C, and the United States.

The Defendant received a request from B at the end of the month 2018 to the effect that “the address to receive an international postal item concealed by marijuana is needed.” After that, the Defendant determined to pay KRW 1 million in return for the receipt of the said international postal item by C between C and C, and notified C of the address of D dan serving for C.

On August 2018, the name weakist in the U.S., notified B of the address of the above D Ga d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d

On August 13, 2018, the above international postal item arrives at the Incheon central service place located in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, Incheon, as G on August 13, 2018, and C around August 21, 2018, around 17:30, 2018, H, an employee of the said D dan, had H, an employee of the said D dan, receive the said international postal item.

Accordingly, the Defendant imported approximately 890g of marijuana to the Republic of Korea in collusion with the names of those in B, C, and the United States.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the second protocol of trial;

1. Each legal statement of the witness H (part) and C;

[C] From the end of July 2018 to the beginning of the first time from the end of this court, from the Defendant’s investigation agency to the first time on August 2018, 2018, after receiving a proposal from the Defendant to the effect that only one million won per case would be given to an address to which he/she is assigned, and then the Defendant informed the Defendant of the address of D dan’s address, and the Defendant used the word “marition” at the time of division into the Defendant’s and Mesenger. C is a person whose sentence became final and conclusive upon being convicted of the criminal facts that he/she already imported marijuana in collusion with the Defendant. In full view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s criminal liability was imposed on the Defendant on the charge of importing marijuana; and (b) it is difficult to find out any special reason or motive unfavorable to the Defendant with the punishment of perjury; and (c) the Defendant’s testimony and credibility in the contents of the said Mesen’s statement and Mesen’s oral investigation agency are sufficiently consistent with the content of C.

Furthermore, considering the following circumstances as to the time when the Defendant proposed to commit an act of importing marijuana from the Defendant, and the process of using the word “marith” in the term referring to “marith” on the I Mes, the Defendant may be sufficiently recognized to have recognized that the said international mail was already contained in the said international mail at the time when the said international mail was sent in the United States.”

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

[Defendant stated to the effect that 'the fact that 'the first time of interrogation of suspect' was fluored to the effect that 'the head of the prosecution asked C to receive narcotic drugs' (No. 617 pages, 621 of the investigation record) or 'the fact that 'the mail might be dangerous' from 'B' was fluorily 'the fact that 'the fact that 'the mail was fluord to the prosecution' (No. 622 of the investigation record)' after 'the first time of interrogation of suspect' and 'the fact that 'B' and J sent to the prosecutor's office' to the effect that 'the fact that 'the fact that 'the 3th time of interrogation of suspect' was unfluored to the prosecutor's office' after 'the first time of interrogation of suspect' (the 652 pages of the investigation record)' and 'the defendant's testimony that 'the above 3th time of interrogation of suspect' is hard to accept the defendant's address '.

1. Each interrogation protocol of the prosecution against H (part) and C;

1. A report on detection;

1. Report of investigation (Attachment to the communications between the suspect C and the defendant) and photograph of contents of the Messenger communications attached thereto, investigation report (Attachment to the judgment against the criminal defendant) and a copy of the judgment attached thereto;

1. Protocol of seizure (Evidence Nos. 4);

1. As a result of analysis, a copy of the protocol of trial in Seoul Central District Court No. 2018 Gohap868;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 58(1)5 and Article 3 subparag. 7 of the Narcotics Control Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act, proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 50 years; and

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Types] Narcotics Crimes 03. Import, Export, etc. (Type 2] mariju, flatable (c)

[Special Aggravationd ] Aggravationd : Same criminal record (not less than a three-year suspended sentence)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, 3 years to 6 years of imprisonment

[Scope of the recommended sentencing revised according to the applicable sentencing range] From five to six years of imprisonment (the lowest limit of the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the statutory minimum limit of the applicable sentencing range, and it is in accordance with the statutory minimum limit of the applicable sentencing range)

3. Determination of sentence: Five years of imprisonment; and

Although there are no favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the fact that marijuana imported by the defendant was entirely confiscated and not distributed domestically, the defendant not only has the criminal records of the crime of narcotics, but also has reached the crime of this case in the same series of times even though it was a repeated crime period. Narcotics crimes are not only destroying the physical and mental health of a me, but also have a serious adverse effect on society as a whole, and it is not easy to detect due to its characteristics, but also have a high risk of recidivism. In order to protect our society and its members from the crime of narcotics, which is recently rapidly internationalization, wide-areaization, and organized, there is a high need to strictly cope with the crime of narcotics, and in particular, the import of narcotics is highly likely to cause the spread of narcotics and its additional crimes. In light of the circumstances of the crime of this case, the inferior nature of the crime in light of the law of the crime and the size of the import of marijuana, etc., the defendant continuously denies his own crime in the investigative agency without reasonable grounds, and thus, the defendant's age and health need to be determined by the strict circumstances of the defendant.

The judge of the presiding judge shall be net;

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Kim Jae-han

1) The facts regarding criminal records can also be recognized only by the confession of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 73Do280, Mar. 20, 1973). The defendant led to the confession of criminal records stated in the facts constituting the crime at the time of interrogation of the suspect by the prosecution (see Supreme Court Decision 446, Mar. 20,