Defendant

Maximum number of trials (prosecutions) and court-oriented trials (public trials)

Law Firm Pust Law Firm, Attorneys Lee Chang-won

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1,800,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge shall be ordered to be paid provisionally.

Punishment of the crime

【Criminal Power】

On March 30, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (mariju) in the Goyang Branch of the District Court on March 30, 2017 and completed the execution of the sentence in the Chuncheon Prison on March 14, 2018.

【Criminal Facts】

Despite the fact that the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, the Defendant dealt with the psychotropic drugs-related Mesofts (tentatively referred to as “philopon”; hereinafter referred to as “philopon”), as follows:

On April 9, 2018, at around 19:30, the Defendant received KRW 1.8 million in cash from Nonindicted 6, a branch in the △△ Sports Park located in the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and purchased and sold 10g of phiphonephones to Nonindicted 6.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of Nonindicted 6’s witness

1. Statement of prosecutorial statement on Nonindicted 6

1. Investigation reports (reports attached to the details of currency), investigation reports (the date and place of crimes through analysis of the details of currency specified);

1. Previous records: Criminal records, investigation reports (Attachment to a copy of the judgment of the case involving the accused narcotics, etc.), each written judgment and personal confinement status;

Application of Statutes

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

Article 60(1)2, Article 4(1)1, and Article 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Narcotics Control Act; Selection of imprisonment, etc.

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

The proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the Defendant and defense counsel's argument

The defendant and defense counsel asserted that although the defendant had met Nonindicted 6 at the time and place stated in the facts charged, the defendant did not sell phiphones to Nonindicted 6.

In light of the following: (a) Nonindicted 6’s statement on the date and time indicated in the facts charged; (b) Nonindicted 6’s statement on Nonindicted 6’s situation at the time and time of the delivery of money and phiphones; and (c) Nonindicted 6’s statement on the date and time indicated in the facts charged; and (d) Nonindicted 6’s statement on Nonindicted 6’s situation at the time and place of the exchange of money and phiphones is relatively specific and consistent; (b) Nonindicted 6 was only aware of the fact that there was no adequate explanation of the reason for the lack; and (c) Nonindicted 6 did not investigate on the treatment of phiphones purchased by Nonindicted 6, as alleged by the defense counsel, there is

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of punishment by law: One month to twenty years;

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

[Determination of Type] Narcotics Crime>>

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd: Same previous conviction (not less than three years of suspended execution)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months to four years

3. Determination of sentence: One year and six months of imprisonment;

In light of the fact that the crime of selling phiphones is committed by distributing phiphones and allowing other persons to use phiphones, and there is a need to strictly punish them compared with a mere medication or a purchase for the purpose of medication, and the defendant already committed the crime in this case even though he had the record of punishment for the same crime four times (it is caused by the sale and purchase of phiphones as in this case two times among them, and it seems to be related to the sale and purchase in light of the quantity possessed by phiphones only one time). The crime in this case was committed within the period of repeated offense for which one month has not passed after completing the execution of imprisonment with prison labor by receiving marijuana, etc., it is difficult to readily impose the punishment of the defendant on the part of the defendant. However, in consideration of the fact that the charge is limited to one time of selling phiphones, the punishment set in the sentencing guidelines shall be set as the lowest.

Judge Lee Lee Jae-soo