logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 진주지원 2013.05.21 2012고단1463 (1)
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 60,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

From June 30, 2012 to July 3, 2012 of the same year, the Defendant injected the quantity of psychotropic drugs per single-time medication using a single-use injection device, and then injected them into his bloodline in an infection.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. A written appraisal;

1. Details of currency;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photograph photographs, such as taking uriines;

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1), and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., for the Establishment of Relevant Acts and the Selection of Punishment for Crimes;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. proviso to Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.;

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not intend to have been administered, but did so by making a group take drinking water, etc. on which the defendant salkylphones are used to drink.

However, the above assertion is rejected, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s time of medication at the investigative agency (the Defendant’s statement at the office of the missing investigative team consisting of a statement made in a reliable state because of tobacco smoking and a statement made in the office of the Investigation Team) and (b) the Defendant could have remaining until two weeks in the country of injection due to the decline in blood plate due to the decline in liveration; (c) even if it is possible for the Defendant to have remaining until two weeks in the country of injection, the Defendant’s examination of the Defendant’s suspect against the Defendant on June 20, 2012, which was 21 days after the Defendant’s examination of the Defendant, on July 11, 2012, it is difficult to see him/her as a trace of blood transfusion injection at the time when he/she prepared the examination of the Defendant’s suspect against the Defendant.

arrow