2016Gohap133 Narcotics Control Act, etc. (fence) and the Control of Narcotics, etc.

Violation of the Act (Cannabis)

A

He/she shall file prosecutions, Kim Goods (Trial)

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

February 10, 2017

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be ordered to take a course of pharmacologic treatment for 80 hours.

43,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Criminal facts

The defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

1. On January 21, 2015, the Defendant, along with C, conspiredd to take charge of the role of searching and purchasing psychotropic drugs, JWH-018 (hereinafter referred to as “synthetic marijuana”), and D’s role of providing funds.

Accordingly, around January 22, 2015, the Defendant purchased approximately KRW 20,000,000,000 from Japan, whose name is unknown, and entered the Republic of Korea into the Kimpo Airport by concealing it in a bank. However, there was no drug substance, such as synthetic marijuana.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with C and D, intended to import psychotropic drugs and attempted to import them.

2. Around January 31, 2015, around January 31, 2015, according to the contents of the public invitation with the Defendant, D and the Defendant, at a place where the location below the Sinm of the Sinm of Japan is unknown, around January 31, 2015, he purchased from a Japanese person whose name is unknown at 12,00N, the synthetic marith of hemp from the Japanese person who purchased at 12,000N, and entered into the Kimpo Airport with the intent to conceal it. However, the aforementioned smugglings did not constitute a synthetic math of narcotics, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with C and D, tried to import psychotropic drugs, and attempted to import them.

3. On June 2015, the Defendant inhaled, at the house of Gangnam-gu Seoul E and C located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul E and 304, approximately one gram of marijuana, with C, and with C.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with C, smoked marijuana.

4. Around July 13, 2015, the Defendant inhaled the said smoke by putting about 1g of synthetic marijuana, together with C, at the house of the above C, and with C.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with C to use psychotropic drugs.

5. Around September 23, 2015, the Defendant inhaled the said smoke by putting about 1g of synthetic marijuana, together with C, at the house of the above C.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with C to administer psychotropic drugs.

6. On April 22, 2016, at the house of the above C, the Defendant diversizeed psychotropic drugs, together with C, with C, so made it into the form of powder, and inhaled them by making use of the divers as soon as possible.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with C to use psychotropic drugs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each protocol of examination of suspect C:

1. Abstract (Evidence No. 15) No. 2015-382 of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety Notice No. 2015-382, and F dialogues with A (No. 24)

1. Each investigation report (the sequence 18,20,22,28 through 31 in the list of evidence);

Application of Statutes

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

Articles 58(1)3 and (3), 3 subparag. 5, and 2 subparag. 3 (a) of the Narcotics Control Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 61(1)4 (a) and Article 3 subparag. 10 (a) of the Narcotics Control Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 58(1)5, Article 3 subparag. 5, and Article 2 subparag. 3 (a) of the Narcotics Control Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 61(1)5, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 61(1)5, and Article 4(1), and Article 2 subparag. 3 (d) of the Narcotics Control Act, Article 30 (Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act, Article 61(1)3 (a) of the Narcotics Control Act, Article 61(1) of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act, Article 30

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes as prescribed by the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (psychotropic Affairs) following the attempted import of psychotropic drugs on January 21, 2015, with the largest penalty and penalty)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Order to attend lectures;

Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

1. Additional collection:

The proviso to Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act [the basis for calculation of a surcharge: 3,00 won [the basis for calculation of a surcharge: 3,00 won (based on the price of cancer trends in the monthly trends of narcotics in the Supreme Prosecutors' Office on September 2016, 2016) + 40,000 won (based on the prices of cancer trends in the monthly trends of narcotics in the Supreme Prosecutors' Office on the market, on September 27, 200) = 43,00 won]

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment for two years and six months to twenty-two years; and

2. Whether the sentencing criteria are applied: As the sentencing criteria are not prepared for the crimes of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) resulting from the attempted import of psychotropic drugs, only the lower limit of the sentencing criteria should be considered for the remaining crimes, and as the lower limit of the applicable sentences for the crimes of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) resulting from the attempted import of psychotropic drugs is higher than the lower limit of the recommended sentences for the remaining crimes, the sentencing criteria

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment for two years and six months, suspended execution three years, 80 hours of pharmacologic treatment, and collection of 43,00 won.

After dividing the roles in advance between the Defendant and his accomplices, the Defendant actively participated in the smuggling by taking the drugs that he directly left Japan and recognized as a synthetic marijuana into Korea. Furthermore, the Defendant smoked and used various kinds of psychotropic drugs, such as marijuana, synthetic marijuana, and log farms, for a considerable period of time.

However, the Defendant recognized all of his/her criminal acts, and reflects his/her mistake in depth, and the synthetic marijuana, which attempted to import, did not actually contain narcotics ingredients, so that the imported criminal act was attempted, and the fake marijuana was not distributed at the time. The amount of each of the above fake marijuana was not distributed at the time. In light of the fact that the Defendant was not detected as a result of the urine and the arctal assessment against the Defendant, it appears that the Defendant was not habitually me to administer narcotics. The Defendant did not have any history of having been punished for the same kind of crime or sentenced to a suspended sentence or heavier punishment.

In addition to the above circumstances, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in the instant case, including the motive, means, and result of the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime was committed, the defendant's age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, and family relationship.

The judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Domen

Judges Go Young-han

1) The prosecutor tried to include 20 won, which is the price of a log farm in the surcharge as to the act of using a log farm as set forth in paragraph (6) of the facts constituting the crime. However, this part of the facts charged is a case where it is impossible to identify the specific quantity of a log farm, and thus, it is excluded from the surcharge.