logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2016.01.29 2015고정581
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

No person, other than a narcotics handler, shall sell and sell a ro-mar (a so-called "ro-mar"; hereinafter referred to as "har-mar") which is a local mental medicine.

On July 15, 2010, at around 15:00, the Defendant purchased and sold the apartment house C in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, 206 Dong 206-dong 206, and D (in pending trial) by means of payment of KRW 300,000 in cash to D and delivery of 100 Eth half.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of D;

1. The response (E Family Department) to the submission order (The evidence duly admitted by this Court reveals that the Defendant became aware of D through a person F around July 2010 and that D’s house was visited twice twice around July 2010.

The facts stated (the lower part of the 74th page of the suspect interrogation protocol, investigation records, etc. on the accused) and D sold E 100 square meters against the accused.

The testimony was made, D, at the time of investigation by an investigative agency (in response to an investigator's question about a crime), voluntarily stated the specific date, time, place, and sales amount, D, and D, at the time of testimony to the effect that (at the time of this court to this effect, the Defendant testified to the effect that Eti half of 100,000 won was sold in accordance with the Defendant's arrest, but D) sold Eti half of 100,000 won in other similar crimes, and it is recognized that there is no special circumstance or personal relationship to sell 10,000,000 won to the Defendant, and that according to this reasoning, it is proved that the Defendant purchased eti half of 100,000 won from D around July 2010, as stated in its reasoning, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that D purchased eti 10,000 won from D)

1. Article 61(1)5 of the Narcotics Control Act and Article 4(1)1 of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, etc. under the relevant Act on criminal facts;

arrow