Defendant 1 and one other

Next Round-ro

Attorney Cho Jae-soo (the national election for all the defendants)

The punishment against Defendant 1 shall be imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and eight months, and that against Defendant 2, two years, respectively.

One hundred and sixty-five days each day of detention prior to the rendering of this judgment shall be included in the above punishment.

Defendant 1 shall confiscate the evidence 1, 2, and 3 of Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2005 and 4286.

1,50 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 2.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the indictment against Defendant 1 was dismissed from August 2005 to November 20 of the same year as to the fact that the Mesphere dose was administered between Defendant 1 and Defendant 1.

Of the facts charged in this case, at around 14:00 on September 2005, Defendant 1 purchased 10 grams from Defendant 2 at the luminous high-speed railroad station prior to the luminous high-speed railroad station located at the time of luminous, and at around 21:00 on October 2005, he was found to have delivered approximately 0.53 grams of the Mespherty to the non-indicted to the non-indicted at the front parking lot prior to the Maspherty Station located at the Maspherty Station located at the time of luminous high-speed railroad station at the time of Maspherty, and sold approximately 0.53 grams to Defendant 10 on September 14:0 on September 205, 205.

On May 18, 2005, Defendant 1 was sentenced to seven months of imprisonment due to a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on July 12, 2005, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Seoul Detention Center on July 12, 200 of the same year. Defendant 2 was sentenced on October 15, 2002 by the Seoul High Court for special robbery, and completed the execution of the sentence on November 25, 2004 at the Ansan Prison on November 25, 2004, even if he is not a narcotics handler;

1. Defendant 1

On 16:40 on 10 December 16, 2005, in order to commit narcotics crimes in front of the Seongbuk-gu bus terminal located in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, with a view to committing the narcotics crimes, Defendant 2 of the above, with a view to committing the narcotics crimes: (a) having the psychotropic drug in the purchase price of KRW 2,70,000; (b) having the upper psychotropic drug in the purchase price of KRW 2,70,000; and (c) having the upper part of approximately 15 grams from that person as a penphone; and (d) having the upper part of them taken over;

2. Defendant 2

A. The fact at the date, time, and place under the above Paragraph 1 is that the above defendant 1 did not have an intention or ability to sell the phiphones to the above defendant 1 while showing about 15 grams to purchase the 2,700,000 won of the price, which is that it was obtained from the ophones from the ophones as the price for the purchase of the phiphones from the ophones, namely, a gold amount of KRW 2,700,000, and it

B. From December 1, 2005 to October 1, 2005, the Plaintiff smoked in a way that added the fluencies to the fluencies of the hemps by using paper, tobacco pipe, etc. from the fluencies (hereinafter referred to as the “fluencies”) to the fluencies of the hemps.

《 판시 제1 및 제2 가.의 사실 》

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Seizure records;

《 판시 제2의 나.의 사실 》

1. A written request for appraisal;

1. The specific issue of the facts charged

1. Grounds for conviction;

《 판시 전과의 점 》

1. Criminal records and reports on confirmation of the date of release;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant 1’s holding: Article 9(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Prevention of Illegal Trading of Narcotics

The second fraud of Defendant 2’s ruling: Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant 2’s holding that the smoking of marijuana under Article 61(1)8 and Article 3 subparag. 11 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.

2. Aggravation of repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Code

3. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, Article 50, and the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act (Defendant 2)

4. Determination of sentence;

(1) Defendant 1

① In addition to the criminal records, the Defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment for one year in 200, one year in 198, one year in 1996, one year in 193, one year in 190, and one year and six months in 1990, and eight months in 198. The Defendant committed the instant crime corresponding to the same kind of imprisonment for five months only after the execution of the final sentence was completed. Considering these circumstances, it is deemed inevitable to punish the Defendant as a sentence of imprisonment.

② In addition to the above previous convictions, the Defendant, in consideration of the fact that the Defendant recognized it as a penphone and separately demanded the amount to be used by him at the time of purchase, and that the Defendant was also trained as a result of appraisal on whether to administer a barphone or not, set the term of punishment against the Defendant

Doz. Defendant 2

① In addition to the repeated crime, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the year 201 and the year 1, 1998, with prison labor for the same crime as this case. Considering these circumstances, it is deemed inevitable to punish the Defendant as a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor.

② Taking into account the previous conviction relationship and the bad character of the crime of this case, the term of punishment was set against the Defendant as stated in the Disposition.

5. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

6. Confiscation;

Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. and Article 48 (1) 1 and 2 of the Criminal Act

7. Additional collection:

Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

1. Summary of the facts charged

From August 2005 to November 20, 20 of the same year, Defendant 1: (a) Hadon Had on August 1, 2005 to Hadon Hadon the philopon’s non-phones into beerer, or dilution with a single-use injection machine; and (b) administered them by means of injection to their arms.

2. Determination

Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The facts constituting the crime charged shall be stated clearly by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime.” The purport of the provision is to ensure the efficiency and speed of a trial by limiting the object of a trial and to facilitate the exercise of defense rights by specifying the scope of defense and facilitate the exercise of defense rights of the defendant. As such, the prosecutor, as a prosecutor, shall include the specific facts that constitute the elements of a crime, so that the facts constituting the elements of a crime can be identified

In the case of most cases where there is no victim like this case and there is no witness in the relation between the mixed or the accomplice, if the defendant denies the above three specifics (day, place and method) due to the nature of the crime, the problem is that the proper exercise of penal authority is restricted.

Therefore, the issue of determining the facts charged should be sought in harmony between the two legal interests, such as adequate exercise of penal authority and guarantee of defendant's right of defense. Even if it is inevitable to indicate the time, place, method, etc. of a crime, it is necessary for a prosecutor to specify the facts charged in such a way that, as far as possible, the maximum possible evidence available at the time of prosecution should be used to predict the time of medication by cutting off and cutting the hair hair at the time of maternity examination and cutting it out to the maximum extent possible to estimate the time of medication.

However, in this case, the prosecutor presumed the time of medication to be "from August 2005 to November 20 of the same year," taking into account the fact that the defendant's hair (the length 3 to 3.5§¯) taken on December 10, 2005 to Busan et al., and the fact that in the case of the opopon training balopon in the case of the opon balopon, the test is within 0.9§¯ to 1.2§¯ in the month, and the period during which it is possible to assess whether the opon was administered using the hair, within 20 days after the administration, the time of administration is within 3 months after the administration, and considering the defendant's residence and the details of the mobile phone use, the place of crime is "the method of administration in Busan et al." to "the method of administration in Busan et al., taking into account the method of administration shown before the defendant's previous conviction."

However, as in the case of this case, if a penphone is detected from the hair of the length only based on the result of appraisal that the test conducted for the hair of the defendant with a length of 3 to 3.5§¯, it cannot be said that the facts charged are specified based on collected evidence to the maximum extent possible so that it does not interfere with the defendant's exercise of defense if the period reaches about three months.

Thus, the above facts charged cannot be deemed to be specified in the facts charged in light of the purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. As such, this part of the public prosecution is null and void in violation of the provisions of the Act, and thus, the public prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. On September 14, 2000, the Defendants sold 10g of Masphers at a square in front of the Masphers in front of the Masphers station located in the Masphers station at the time of Masphers.

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1, at around 14:00 on September 2005, at around 14:00, purchased 2 million won from Defendant 2 at the square in front of the luminous high-speed railroad station located in the luminous name, and 10g of the philopon from the scopon. Defendant 2 received 2 million won from Defendant 1 and sold 10g of the philopon after receiving 2 million won from Defendant 1 as above.

B. Determination

(1) The Defendants denied the above facts charged.

B. Admissibility of evidence of the Prosecutor’s suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant 1

The Defendant does not recognize the substantial authenticity to the effect that the facts investigated by the prosecution have no memory at all at the time of arrest. According to the record of the duty of detention house against the same person, the Defendant’s above assertion is not reliable, but according to Article 312(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant does not require the original person to present reasonable grounds for not recognizing the authenticity, and there is no case where the authenticity is established by other means than the original person’s statement, and the above protocol of interrogation of the suspect concerned is not recognized as the authenticity.

However, in the proviso of the same Article, “where the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances,” the admissibility of evidence is recognized (in addition to the establishment of the above petition, it is possible to view it as an aggravated requirement for the recognition of the admissibility of evidence, but it is deemed reasonable to interpret it as a requirement for the recognition of admissibility of evidence, separate from the establishment of the petition, in light of the language and text of the above provision), and there is no proof as to it, and it does not appear that the examination of the defendant constitutes a case where it was made under particularly reliable circumstances (the presence of

Article 22(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The prosecutor’s interrogation protocol on the suspect’s interrogation of Defendant 2 shall be included in the interrogation protocol on the suspect’s interrogation of Defendant 2.” However, the prosecutor’s interrogation protocol on the suspect’s interrogation of Defendant 2 is doubtful in light of the fact that Defendant 1 and 2 engaged in frequent mobile phone conversations between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, and that he did not have any fact of mobile phone conversations between that person around the time when the facts charged were recorded (at the time, the statement was recorded in public telephone, but no special circumstance exists to make telephone conversations differently from that later, the prosecutor’s interrogation protocol on the suspect’s interrogation of Defendant 2 is included in credibility. There is no indirect evidence supporting the above facts charged.

If so, it is difficult to view that the above facts charged are proven to the extent that there is a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the verdict of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 32

2. Around 21:00 on October 2005, Defendant 1 delivered approximately 0.53 grams to the Nonindicted Party at the parking lot in front of the Yansan High-Speed railway station located in Asan-si, Acheon-si, Acheon-si, as a result, to the non-indicted 1.

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1, at around 21:00 on October 2005, at the 21:00 Asan-si's parking lot prior to the Masan-si's high speed railway station, sent approximately 0.53 grams of philopon to the above non-indicted.

B. Determination

The prosecutor's interrogation protocol on the defendant 1 does not admit admissibility as mentioned above, and the evidence conforming to the above facts charged is only a statement in the court and investigation agency of the non-indicted.

However, according to the statement of the monetary fact inquiry statement, it is recognized that there is no mobile phone call between Defendant 1 and the Nonindicted Party in the vicinity of Asan City at the time when the aforementioned facts charged were recorded. In addition, it is difficult to avoid the probability that the Nonindicted Party committed suicide on December 4, 2005 due to the side effects of philophone medication, and reported to the investigation agency and made it difficult for the investigation agency to report the source of 0.5g of philophone in the course of arrest and investigation.

In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the above non-indicted's statement, and the above facts charged fall under a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

Judge Sick Order