logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.07.06 2018노180
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In full view of the F’s statement on the gist of the grounds of appeal and the details of remitting the amount of philopon to the account designated by the Defendant, the lower court determined that the Defendant was innocent as to the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the fact, even though it was sufficiently recognized that the Defendant sold philopon to F as described in the facts charged in this case

2. Determination

A. The Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

1) On March 12, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around March 11, 2015, on March 11, 2015, at around 17:00, sold phiphones by receiving KRW 150,000 from the bank account in the name of G, which is used by the Defendant, to transfer KRW 1.5g of the price to the account of the Nonghyup Bank in the name of G, which is used by the Defendant.

2) On May 22, 2015, the Defendant, at around 13:00 around May 22, 2015, sold phiphones by receiving KRW 100,000,00 from the Defendant’s Saemaul Treasury Account with the Defendant’s use on the same day, to transfer KRW 0.5g of phiphones, which are contained in F in a single-use injection device, from the place described in paragraph 1 at around 13:0 on May 22, 2015.

B. The lower court determined that according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, F’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case cannot be trusted, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendant sold a phiphone to F as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

It judged that there was a lack of recognition.

(1) The first prosecutor stated that “F transferred the account without cash when purchasing KRW 0.5g 0,000 or KRW 150,000,000 from the Defendant,” and thereafter, the statement is consistent with the statement, such as the reversal, etc. of the statement that “as the prosecutor points out that the purchase price is too low in light of the quality investigation with the Defendant, the prosecutor points out that the amount of the purchase price is too low.”

arrow