2013 Highest 4758 Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. ( natives)

A person shall be appointed.

Commissioner (Court Prosecutions) and this peace (Court Trials)

Law Firm Sang-sung

Attorney Kim Han-han

August 11, 2015

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Facts charged

Even if the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, the Defendant purchased a Meditopuler A (n, 47 years old) and a Meditopule, a thickness of psychotropic drugs (hereinafter referred to as the “ditophone”; hereinafter referred to as the “ditophone”), who operates the Meditotop, and intended to administer it.

A. On March 2012, the Defendant received KRW 1,50,000 as the purchase price for the phone from the above A, and arranged for the purchase of the phone by sending approximately 1.5g of 1.5g of philopon to the user, who is in gold-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon. The Defendant arranged for the trade of philopon by sending approximately 1.5g of philopon to the user.

B. The Defendant: (a) received KRW 1 million from the above A with a title of the purchase price for phiphones from the above A, and (b) 2g of phiphones from the upper party’s name in the upper party’s name, and arranged to trade phiphones by delivering it to the above A.

C. On June 4 of the same year, the Defendant received 1,50,000 won from the above A as the purchase price for the philopon, and purchased 3 glopon using 1,500,000 won from the upper line name and the upper line name and the upper line name and the upper line name and the upper line name and the upper line name and the upper part.

D. On June 13 of the same month: at around 00, the Defendant injected approximately 0.1g of the penphonephones purchased in the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Daejeon, with paragraph 3, into a single-use injection machine, and melts the rophones rapidly, into his own arms, and continuously injected approximately 0.1g of the rophones into a single-use injection machine, and melts the rophones rapidly, and melts the rophones into A’s arms.

2. Determination

On the other hand, the Defendant consistently denies that there was no fact that the Defendant purchased, arranged, or administered philophones as above from the investigative agency to the court of this case.

The copy of the police statement made to A, and a copy of each police interrogation report made to A is inadmissible as long as the defendant in the co-offender's book denies its contents. The relevant statement made to K in the copy of the prosecutor's correspondence protocol made to the prosecution does not consent to the defendant as evidence, and as K, who is the person making the original statement, denies its authenticity by attending this court and denying its authenticity, there is no admissibility of evidence.

On the other hand, A gives testimony to the purport that it corresponds to the facts charged by attending the court of this case as a witness and gives a testimony to the effect that it is fit to the facts charged. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by A: (a) A reverses the repeated statement at the time of investigation by an investigative agency; (b) A conflicts with objective data: (c) the source and circumstances leading up to receipt of money in relation to the purchase of phones; (d) A failed to make clear statements on the place and date and time where A administered a phiphone; and (d) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant administered a phiphone, it is difficult to believe that the above statement of A was not reliable; and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the remainder of the facts charged; and (e) there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment on the person accused is publicly notified under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges Hong-chan