logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.11.23 2015고단2021
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

50,000 won from the defendant.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On May 23, 2013, the Defendant sentenced the Seoul Central District Court to two years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and completed the execution of the sentence on March 24, 2015.

The defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

During the period from May 17, 2015 to May 18, 2015, the Defendant administered a penphone by inserting in a single-use injection machine the campopon (one-time campopon; hereinafter referred to as “copon”) of non-dilutiond water at the Defendant’s residence located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government CPublic Notice Telephone 304, into his own arms.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Part of the protocol concerning the interrogation of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Response to the request for appraisal;

1. Additional return for a request for appraisal;

1. Before the judgment: Criminal history records, investigation report (Attachment of a copy of the judgment), and suspect prisoner search claimed that the defendant and his defense counsel stated in the facts charged of this case, although the defendant did not have administered anesthesia at the time stated in the instant facts charged, they did not have any scopon administered. However, the defendant's scopon training reaction was conducted in the outcome of the defendant's scopon training from scopon therapy, even during the injection period used by the defendant. According to the defendant's statement, the defendant purchased anesthesia from scopon to scopon and administered anesthesia six times. The defendant knew that the scopon administered scopon in the past because he knew of the scopon administered scopon, and even if the defendant purchased scopon with a drug other than scopon, it appears that the scopon was sufficiently known that the scopon was made in the first medication process.

arrow