Defendant 1 and two others

Seo Dong-dong(s) and Lee Dong-dong(s)

Attorney Lee Ji-sung et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and by imprisonment for two months, one year, and two years, and one year and two months for two years, respectively, with prison labor for a case of 2018 Gooman 2828 decided as to each of the following subparagraphs:

However, with respect to Defendant 3, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant 3 shall be put on probation for two years and shall be ordered to take a course of pharmacologic treatment for 80 hours.

No. 4 and 6 of the evidence seized in relation to the case 2019 order306 shall be forfeited from Defendant 1.

The amount of KRW 100,00 from Defendant 1, KRW 200,00 from Defendant 2, and KRW 300,00 from Defendant 3 shall be collected respectively.

The amount equivalent to each of the above additional charges shall be ordered to be paid provisionally.

Of the facts charged of this case, the prosecution against Defendant 1 is dismissed.

Defendant 1 (Defendant 2) was sentenced by the Seoul Central District Court on June 22, 2017 to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. on December 20, 2017, and the execution of the above punishment was terminated at the Seoul East East Detention Center on December 20, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 8, 2018.

" 2018 Highest 2828"

Defendant 1 is not a person handling narcotics, and thus he cannot handle the psychotropic drugs-related Mesofts (one philopon; hereinafter referred to as “philopon”).

Defendant 1, from March 12, 2018 to 08:40 on March 13, 2018, at the ○○ City or △△△△△ City, Defendant 1 administered phiphones once by inserting the volume of phiphones into a single-use injection machine, dilution with water, and injection into the Defendant’s arms blood transfusion.

" 2019 Highest 306"

Defendant 1 is not a person handling narcotics.

Defendant 1: (a) around 12:30 on January 12, 2018, at the guest room 205 located in ○○○○ City ( Address 1 omitted), Defendant 1: (b) stored psychotropic drugs in Defendant 1’s clothes and carried psychotropic drugs, respectively, by inserting 1 of fluice 2, a psychotropic drug acquired by an influoring method in fluor 4, a fluor 8, a DNA 8, a log 2, and a stroke 2, and a stroke 1, a stroke 1.

" 2019 Highest 1280"

On January 16, 2019, Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) committed assault in the prison room in △△△△△△, Defendant 1 (hereinafter “Defendant 1”), Defendant 1 (hereinafter “Defendant 23 years of age”), and Defendant 2 committed assault, such as assaulting the victim’s head at a time when the victim’s head was taken off due to drinking, and causing injury to the victim during about five weeks of medical treatment.

" 2019 Highest 365"

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 are not authorized to handle psychotropic drugs, so they cannot deal with Metephopics (one philopopon; hereinafter “philopon”).

1. Defendant 2

피고인은 2018. 6. 29.경 피고인 3으로부터 필로폰을 구해달라는 부탁을 받아 피고인 3에게 필로폰을 매도하기로 마음먹고, 같은 날 피고인 3이 보내준 필로폰 매매대금 20만원을 피고인이 사용하는 공소외 3 명의 농협 계좌[계좌번호 : (계좌번호 1 생략)]로 송금받은 후 2018. 6. 30.경 양주시 (주소 3 생략)에 있는 피고인 3의 주거지인 ▷▷▷아파트 앞 노상에서, 피고인 3을 만나 필로폰 불상량이 들어 있는 일회용주사기를 피고인 3에게 건네주었다.

Accordingly, the Defendant sold philophones to Defendant 3.

2. Defendant 3

On June 29, 2018, upon receipt of the request from Non-Indicted 4 for the delivery of the penphone, the Defendant purchased the penphone from Non-Indicted 2 and intended to sell it to Non-Indicted 4 on the same day, and transferred the above money to Non-Indicted 3’s account in the name of Non-Indicted 5’s account (Account Number: Account Number 2 omitted) used by Non-Indicted 4, and then transferred the money to Non-Indicted 3’s account (Account Number 1 omitted) used by Non-Indicted 2.

그 후 피고인은 2018. 6. 30.경 양주시 (주소 3 생략)에 있는 피고인의 주거지인 ▷▷▷아파트 앞 노상에서, 피고인 2를 만나 피고인 2로부터 필로폰 불상량이 들어 있는 일회용주사기를 건네받고, 그 무렵 위 장소에서, 공소외 4를 만나 위 필로폰을 공소외 4에게 건네주었다.

Accordingly, the Defendant purchased philophones from Defendant 2 and sold philophones to Nonindicted 4.

" 2019 Highest 2195"

Defendant 3 is not a person dealing with psychotropic drugs, such as a single-name clopon (hereinafter referred to as “philopon”).

1. Receipt of Handphones;

Defendant 3 received approximately 0.1g of philopon from Defendant 2 at the residence of Yangju-si ( Address 2 omitted), 102 Dong 401, and Defendant 2 at the night around April 2018 and around 0.1g of philopon.

2. Medication of phiphones.

The following day after the date specified in paragraph (1) was administered by Defendant 3 in a way that wraps the shotphones received as stated in paragraph (1) in the city of Yang-si ( Address 2 omitted), 102 Dong 503, and the Defendant’s dwelling, and in a way that wraps into a coffee.

Note 1) Before the ruling: criminal records of Defendant 1, personal confinement status, and judgment

" 2018 Highest 2828"

1. Statements by Defendant 1 in part of the first protocol of trial;

1. Each legal testimony of the witness, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 8

1. Reports on internal accidents (based on detection of simplified reagents and hearing of the other party's opinions by taxi drivers);

1. Each statement on narcotics appraisal;

1. Seizure records;

1. Report on investigation, and the monthly trend of narcotics;

[Defendant 1 and his defense counsel testified to the effect that they were prosecuted due to the evidence obtained through illegal seizure procedures (such as seizure records, simplified inspection results, drug appraisal records, etc.) such as forced submission by the police without a search and seizure warrant, etc. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, namely, ① all the police who participated in the investigation process at the court were present at bar to the effect that “the process of collecting scopical scopics, etc. was not available and the Defendant’s will was confirmed during the process of voluntary submission or seizure, and that they were collected in accordance with due process,” and ② the military police did not directly investigate the Defendant, but did not hear the mother’s scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic s of the Defendant.

" 2019 Highest 306"

1. The defendant 1's partial statement in the fourth trial record;

1. Records of seizure (or submission thereof) - No 10 of the evidence list;

1. A letter of request for appraisal (2018-M-111) of the mixed refining (type 6, 19) contained in the white bags;

1. Investigation report (verification of psychotropic drugs);

[Defendant 1 and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that they were in possession of psychotropic drugs, which were prohibited by the Act, by being aware of their simple water exemption. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., the Defendant was unable to bring an action against the drug in possession. ② Seizure of psychotropic drugs, which was conducted around January 12, 2018, 17, the majority of which were confirmed as psychotropic drugs, and the Defendant’s prescription was issued from May 6, 2016 to February 6, 2017, and it was hard to view that the above prescription was issued by the above psychotropic drugs, but it was still difficult to find that the prescription was issued by the above psychotropic drugs, and that there was no other prescription that was issued by the above psychotropic drugs. However, the Defendant did not appear to have been issued by the above psychotropic drugs at the time of their initial prescription. However, it was difficult to view that the prescription was issued by the above psychotropic drugs at the time of their delivery.

" 2019 Highest 1280"

1. The defendant 2's partial statement

1. Legal testimony by Defendant 1 to the witness;

1. Each police interrogation protocol and statement of the defendant 1;

1. Data on correctional institution research;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

[Defendant 2 and his defense counsel denied the fact of injury because of the fact at the time of the victim's head. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court: (a) the victim claims that the victim sustained bodily injury by consistently exposing the bones of the victim; (b) the defendant and the victim suffered bodily injury in the course of packing the Defendant two times; (c) the place where the injury in this case occurred can be caused by the fact in the state where the majority of the correctional officers were mixed with the horses due to the narrow space; and (d) the degree of the injury in this case appears to be difficult to reach a simple contact with the victim; and (e) other violence or circumstances likely to cause the injury in this case are not discovered; and (e) the victim's act in the dispute between the defendant and the victim can be recognized as having suffered bodily injury due to the defendant's act in the process of dispute, the above assertion is without merit.

" 2019 Highest 365"

1. Legal statement of the defendant 2 and the defendant 3

1. An interrogation protocol of Defendant 3 by the prosecution;

1. The prosecutor's protocol on the defendant 2 and the police interrogation protocol;

1. A copy of each police interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 4

1. Each investigation report (calculated on additional charges) and the monthly trend of narcotics;

1. Evidence lists Nos. 18, 34, 35, 36;

" 2019 Highest 2195"

1. Defendant 3’s legal statement

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each investigation report (a copy of suspect interrogation protocol prepared by Defendant 2, and calculation of additional charges);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant 1: Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, 2 subparag. 3(b) (the point of 2018 Highest 2828 philophone medication) of the Narcotics Control Act, Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, 2 subparag. 3(c) of the Narcotics Control Act (the point of 2019 Highest 306 florates) of the Narcotics Control Act, Articles 61(1)5, 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(d) (the point of possession of other psychotropic drugs) of the Narcotics Control Act, each of Articles 61(1)5, 61(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(d) of the Narcotics Control Act (the point of possession of other psychotropic drugs)

Defendant 2: Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, 2 subparag. 3(b) (a) of the Narcotics Control Act, Article 262, 260(1), and 257(1)(a) of the Criminal Act (a person injured by assault)

Defendant 3: Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (the purchase, sale, delivery, and medication of phiphones)

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant 1: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendants: Imprisonment Decision

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Defendant 1: Article 35 of the Criminal Act ( between the crimes of Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) and the criminal facts of the case in the 2018 Highest 2828)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act ( Before and after the date of the sale, between the previous and the case before the date of the sale and the case before the date of order)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 3: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Orders for probation and education;

Defendant 3: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Defendant 1: The main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendants: Reference to the proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act (see, e.g., each investigation report on collection)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendants: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Defendant 1]

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

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

【Determination of Punishment】

Drug Crime>> 01. Medication, Simple Possession, etc.>>> (b) and (c)

【Special Convicted Persons】

- Aggravations: Same criminal records (not more than three years of suspended execution);

【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】

Aggravation, one year to three years of imprisonment;

[No person who is a general person]

[Reasons for Suspension of Execution]

3. Determination of sentence: One year (cases 2018 Highest 2828);

In the case of 2018 Highest 2828, the defendant did not reflect the fact of the crime by claiming the illegality of the seizure procedure and maintaining a vindication that he is supposed even when the fact of supperoning was recognized by the evidence of the judgment. It is also acknowledged that the defendant did not seriously reflect the fact of the crime, such as the fact that he committed the crime of this case during the repeated crime period due to the same crime and did not observe the service regulations within the confinement facility. In addition, the sentencing guidelines, the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive and consequence of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, etc., are determined as ordered by considering all factors of the sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, such as sentencing guidelines, the defendant's age, character and behavior, family relation, motive and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the punishment shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the equity in the case of the final judgment at the same time with the crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act.

[Defendant 2]

1. Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to fifteen years;

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

(a) Second offense (Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.) ;

【Determination of Punishment】

Narcotics Crime>> Trade, Mediation, etc.

【Special Convicted Persons】

- Aggravations: Same criminal records (not more than three years of suspended execution);

【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】

Aggravation, 1 year to 4 years of imprisonment;

[No person who is a general person]

(b) Second crime;

【Determination of Punishment】

Violence Crime>> 03. Violence Crime>>

【Special Convicted Persons】

- The factors for mitigation: A person who has not been punished (including a serious effort for the recovery of damage) or whose considerable damage has been recovered;

【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】

Reduction Area, Imprisonment from February to June;

[No person who is a general person]

(c) Scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months to four years (the upper limit of the first crime + the upper limit of the second crime).

3. Determination of sentence: One year of imprisonment;

Although the Defendant committed the instant crime despite the previous crimes committed, the Defendant committed the instant crime in the accommodation facility, etc. However, the Defendant’s confession and reflects each of the instant crimes, and is recognized as favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant does not want the punishment of the Defendant. In addition, considering all factors of sentencing specified in the pleadings of the instant case, such as sentencing guidelines, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and consequence of the instant crime, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered, taking into account all factors of sentencing specified in the pleadings of the instant case, such as sentencing guidelines, Defendant’s age, character and conduct

[Defendant 3]

1. Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to fifteen years;

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

(a) Second offense (Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.) ;

【Determination of Punishment】

Narcotics Crime>> Trade, Mediation, etc.

【Special Convicted Persons】

- Aggravations: Same criminal records (not more than three years of suspended execution);

【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】

Aggravation, 1 year to 4 years of imprisonment;

[No person who is a general person]

(b) Second crime (Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.).

【Determination of Punishment】

Narcotics Crime>> Trade, Mediation, etc.

【Special Convicted Persons】

- Aggravations: Same criminal records (not more than three years of suspended execution);

【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】

Aggravation, 1 year to 4 years of imprisonment;

[No person who is a general person]

(c) Type 3 crime (Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.).

【Determination of Punishment】

Drug Crime>> 01. Medication, Simple Possession, etc.>>> (b) and (c)

【Special Convicted Persons】

- Aggravations: Same criminal records (not more than three years of suspended execution);

【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】

Aggravation, one year to three years of imprisonment;

[No person who is a general person]

(d) Scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: One year and six months to seven years (the upper limit of the first crime + the upper limit of the second crime + 1/2 of the upper limit of the third crime + 1/3 of the upper limit of the third crime);

3. Determination of sentence: One year and two months of imprisonment and three years of suspended sentence;

Although it is inevitable for the defendant to commit each of the narcotics crimes of this case even though he had the same criminal records, it is inevitable to scam severe punishment. However, it is recognized that there are favorable circumstances such as the confession of each of the crimes of this case, the fact that there is a family member to support, etc. In addition, the sentencing guidelines, the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive of the crime, means of crime and result, all of the sentencing factors shown in the arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime, etc.

1. Summary of this part of the facts charged

At around January 16, 2019, Defendant 1 committed assault against the victim by putting the victim a blick with Defendant 2 (Inn, 34 years of age) in the prison room in △△△△△△, Defendant 1, who was blicked with Defendant 2 (Inn, 34 years of age), and was blick and blicked with his hand once.

2. Determination

The above facts charged are crimes falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the express will of the victim under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. However, according to the records of this case, the victim may recognize the fact that he/she withdraws his/her wishing to punish Defendant 1 on or around May 22, 2019, after the institution of the instant indictment.

Therefore, this part of the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Park Chang-chul

Note 1) See evidence records of 2018 Godan2828