2017Gohap1277,1307(Consolidated) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.

Ma of the crime recognized for Gohap

【Violation of the Medicine Control Act (favour)】

1. B

2. C

3. A;

4. D;

Kim Sung-hun (each indictment, each public trial)

Attorney Lee Im-soo (for the defendant B)

Attorney Go-man (for the defendant C)

Law Firm Seocheon General Law Office (for Defendant A),

Attorney Lee Jae-won

Attorney Lee Jin-jin (the national election for defendant D)

October 31, 2018

Defendant B’s imprisonment of twelve years, Defendant C’s imprisonment of six years, Defendant A’s imprisonment of three years, and Defendant D’s imprisonment of eight years, respectively.

The evidence Nos. 1 through 13, 15, 18, 20 through 22, 25, 40 through 42 (Evidence Nos. 1 through 11, 20 through 22) from Defendant B of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, the evidence Nos. 27 and 28 of the Seoul Central Prosecutors’ Office 2017 and 7056, the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 19 from Defendant D of the Seoul Central Prosecutors’ Office shall be confiscated, respectively.

jointly with Defendant B, C, and A, KRW 101,60,000,00 shall be jointly collected in 2,000,000 from Defendant B, and KRW 100,000 from Defendant B, and KRW 800,80,000 from Defendant D shall be additionally collected.

In order to order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional collection charges. Of the facts charged in this case, each violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) by selling philopon from September 16, 2017 among the facts charged in this case, each violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flaps) by Defendant B, September 2, 2017, and September 4, 2017, and each violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flaps) by using philopon numbers from September 4, 2017, each violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flaps)

Criminal facts)

2017Gohap1277 Defendant B returned to a Japanese organization as an "E" member of YAE, Defendant C is a large person from the Japanese organization, Defendant A is a Japanese person, Defendant D is a large person, Defendant D is a large person, and both Defendants are not a person handling narcotics.

Defendant C entered Korea on September 5, 2017 in order to sell the psychotropic drugs (one philopopon; hereinafter referred to as “philopon”) being sealed in the Republic of Korea by the name in Taiwan (one clopon; hereinafter referred to as “F”), and Defendant D entered Korea on September 25, 2017, with the G (G, one clopon on October 21, 2017) of his full nationality, upon the direction of the F in Taiwan, to receive the clopon, and sell the copon to the copon winners of name after selling the copon to the copon winners of name. Defendant B purchased the copon from the above Defendant C, etc. and sold the copon to the copon winners of name.

1. Defendant B and Defendant A

A. Defendant B and C decided to trade KRW 50,000,000 per 1 kilogramphone, Defendant B demanded a penphone sample first to request C to communicate with F on September 6, 2017, and C changed a penphone sample. Defendant B and C received approximately KRW 1-2g of a barphone sample from an influent person who was sent by F in the vicinity of the H Station located in Gangnam-gu Seoul.

Since then, C, with the K Building L (Defendant B’s residence) located in the same Gu from which Defendant A was under the direction of Defendant B, opened a bitphone of an influent quantity ( approximately 1-2g) by means of opening a philopon on the table near the place where Defendant B and Defendant A had been located.

Nevertheless, Defendant B refers to the purport that the quantity of penphone sampling may be changed in size to C, and C contacted with F in Taiwan and changed a penphone sampling, and 7th of the same month following the following day, Defendant B received a penphone sample of the name unexponed (3-5g) from the name unexponed person sent by F in the vicinity of the hotel located in Gangnam-gu Seoul.

Since then, Defendant B instructed Defendant A and M to be the result of the sampling of the penphone, and Defendant A was driving the said car on the just to the H station in the vicinity of the H station in which C had been carrying M, and was able to get the front window of the Ma, which was in the next order, and C was the penphone of the fluent volume ( approximately 3-5g).

As a result, Defendant B received philophones in collusion with M, and Defendant A aided it.

B. Defendant B and C engaged in the transaction of sampling of penphones as described in the above paragraph (a) and agreed to engage in 2 kg of penphones, and C was sealed from the name influenite, who sent F in the vicinity of the hotel located in Gangnam-gu Seoul on September 15, 2017, and was sealed with 2 kg of penphones from the name influenite, who was sent by F inf around the hotel located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul.

Since then, Defendant B decided to purchase KRW 100,000,000 from the above C to purchase KRW 2 km, and around 16:10 to 01:20 of the same month, Defendant B placed M on the passenger car (J) and placed approximately KRW 2 km on the back of Defendant B’s passenger car (J) located near the H Station located in Gangnam-gu Seoul and stopped there.

Since then, at around 13:00 on the same day with Defendant A, Defendant B went to Daegu via the STRT. At around 18:00 on the same day, Defendant B, around 19:50 on the same day after entering the STRT in the Eastern Zone, and around H Station, Defendant B, at around 19:50 on the same day, changed the purchase price of 10,000,000 won for 10,000 won for 10,000,000 won for 10,000 won for 10,000,000 won for 30,000 won for 13:0,000 won for 10,000,0000 won for 10,000 won for 10

2. Defendant B

On October 13, 2017, the Defendant requested Ma to change philopon sampling, and instructed Ma to receive philopon sampling from C, and M received about 5 g of philopon from 19:00 on the same day, which had been contacted by C in front of 0:00,000, in Gangnam-gu Seoul, at around 19:00.

Accordingly, in collusion with M, the Defendant received approximately five g of philopon from a person with no name.

3. Defendant C.

A. The Defendant, in collusion with F and his instructions, conspired with F and M on September 6, 2017 and around July of the same month with B and M on September 7, 2017, sold approximately KRW 2 kg of opphones to B and M around the same month, and sold approximately KRW 100 million of opphones to B and M around the 16th day of the same month.

B. The Defendant received a proposal from B that he wanted to receive philophone sampling and contacted F with F in Taiwan and sent philophone sampling, and F notified F of F of the place of transaction of philophone sampling.

On October 13, 2017, M received approximately 5g of philopon sampling from a person who was unaware of the name of Taiwan, who was known by the Defendant, at least 19:00, located in Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with F, delivered approximately 5g of philopon to B and M.

4. Defendant D

A. A. On October 11, 2017, the Defendant and G confirmed the trading partner in the manner of displaying the paper of KRW 1,000, the transaction letter to the person who was not registered in the Republic of Korea, who was sent by the F, and was given a direction from F to f to 1:00 to 3:0,000 of the penphone, which was sealed by the name in the Republic of Korea. On October 1, 201, the Defendant and G sent approximately 4 km of the penphone to the person who was not registered in the Republic of Korea.

Accordingly, the defendant delivered philophones together with F and G.

B. Around October 17, 2017, the Defendant and G confirmed the trading partner in the manner of displaying the paper 1,000 won (i.e., the letter of transaction) to the person who was not registered in the Republic of Korea, who was given an instruction from the above F to the person who was not registered in the Republic of Korea, about 4 km out of the penphone, which was sealed by the person who was not registered in the Republic of Korea. In front of the exit from Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the Defendant confirmed the trading partner in the manner of displaying the paper 1,00 won (i.e., the letter of transaction) to the person who was not registered in the Republic of Korea. G, approximately 4 km of the penphone-phone.

As a result, the Defendant issued philophones with F and G.On October 18, 2017, the Defendant administered philophones with G in a manner of injecting approximately 1g of philophones from P building of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government P building, and the bottom of the philophones by heating them into a string machine created by plastic bottles, and inhaleing smokes generated by philophones into a string machine.

D. On October 19, 2017, the Defendant administered approximately 1g philophones with G in the above P Building Q, and in the above manner, approximately 1g of philophones.

E. On October 20, 2017, around 19:00, the Defendant kept approximately 10.06 ghopphones under the cooling house and furniture in the above P building Q.

“2017 Gohap1307

1. Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant A decided to sell phiphones to Defendant B with the direction of F in Taiwan, and Defendant B decided to purchase phiphones from the above Defendant C and sell phiphones to the supply volume of phiphones.

Defendant B paid KRW 46 million per 1km to Defendant C, and Defendant C informed Defendant B of the place of the phiphone transaction in which Defendant C was contacted by F in Taiwan, and the Defendants, at around October 19, 2017, went to Defendant B’s passenger car (J) around 15:00 and going to the H basin in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government R.

Afterwards, the Defendants, at the F’s order at the above place, 8 km, carried a person with no name of the large-scale national, who had been in possession of 8 km, or carried the above car into the said car, and got out a room containing 8 km from the person with no name of the large-scale national. Accordingly, Defendant C sold 8 km in collusion with those with those with no name, and Defendant B purchased 8 km of the penphone, and Defendant A aided and abetted Defendant B to commit the crime of purchasing the penphone as above.

2. Defendant B

A. On October 19, 2017, around 17:30 on October 17, 2017, the Defendant administered the instant drugs in a way that, by inserting the volume of penphones from Q of the Gangnam-gu Seoul S building and the volume of penphones into a pipe of glass, heated the rophones into a pipe, and inhales the smoke generated from the rophones into a pipe.

B. On October 19, 2017, around 18:10 on October 19, 2017, the Defendant kept approximately KRW 5,35 g of philopon in Q of the above S building, and in one’s own paper machine.

C. On October 19, 2017, the Defendant kept approximately KRW 617.72g of phiphonephones received from V from Songpa-gu Seoul building U on October 19, 2017.

3. Defendant C.

A. On October 18, 2017, the Defendant received approximately 5.24 g of W subway stations located in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul, and delivered them to M residing together with B.

B. On October 19, 2017, around 19:35, the Defendant possessed K Building L in Gangnam-gu Seoul, and 9.38g of psychotropic drugs, in a cigarette packing.

4. Defendant D

A. On October 18, 2017, the Defendant issued 5.24 g phiphones to C with approximately 5.24 g phiphones around the W subway station located in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul.

B. The Defendant received an instruction from an influor of name in Taiwan to deliver C for sale of 8 kmphones, and decided to sell 8 kmphones to C along with G of Taiwan nationality. On October 20, 2017, the Defendant, around 21:15, waiting C in the city of Mapo-gu, which is located near the entrance of the W subway Station 2 located in Mapo-gu, Seoul, the place of trade of phiphonephones contacted by the above influor of name, and G, at the distance of 8 km near the said subway station, arrested the Defendant, while the investigators belonging to the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office arrested the Defendant, the Defendant was putting the door 8 km away from the said subway station.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with the above, attempted to sell 8 km of philophones, but attempted to commit the attempted crimes.

Summary of Evidence

[No. 1-A of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of 2017Gohap1277]

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Partial statement in the suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution (No. 8 No. 2017Da12777) dated November 13, 2017 against Defendant A

1. K building photograph which is Defendant B’s residence [Article 1-2 of the Criminal facts as indicated in the Judgment No. 2017, 1277]

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Partial statement of witness Y;

1. Part of the protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendant A by the prosecution (No. 2017 Gohap1277 No. 35 of the evidence list);

1. Investigation report (the current status of entry into and departure from the J-Vehicle Station);

1. JPS route, parking record, and receipt of parking fees (Article 2 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below No. 2017Da1277);

1. C’s legal statement;

[Article 3-1 of the Criminal facts stated in the Decision 2017Gohap1277]

1. Defendant C’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of M;

1. Part of the protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendant A by the prosecution (No. 2017 Gohap1277 No. 35 of the evidence list);

1. Investigation report (the current status of entry into and departure from the J-Vehicle Station);

1. JPS route, parking record, and receipt of parking fees (Article 3-2 of the Criminal facts in the judgment of the court No. 2017, 1277);

1. Defendant C’s legal statement

1. Each protocol of examination of M prepared by the prosecution for M [Article 4-1 (A), and (b) of the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the holding of No. 2017 high-

1. Defendant D’s legal statement

1. Protocol of seizure (Chophones, etc.) (No. 68 No. 2017 Gohap1307 No. 507);

1. Notification of the result of legal and chemical appraisal;

1. Mobile phone photographs and 1,00 won photographic photo, CCTV photographs (No. 73 No. 2017 Gohaphap1307) 1. Transportation card [No. 4-C, 4-D, and 5-3 of the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of No. 2017 Gohap1277];

1. Defendant D’s legal statement

1. Protocol of seizure (Chophones, etc.) (No. 68 No. 2017 Gohap1307 No. 507);

1. Notification of the results of legal and chemical appraisal, and written appraisal (Article 1 of the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment No. 2017, 1307);

1. Defendant C’s legal statement

1. The defendant B and A's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness C, Z and AA;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of M (limited to the defendant C);

1. Protocol of seizure (Handphones, etc.) (No. 6 No. 2017 Gohap1307 No. 1307);

1. A photograph of seized articles (No. 9 of the steam List No. 2017, 1307) (Article 2 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of No. 2017, 1307);

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Protocol of seizure (Handphones, etc.) (No. 6 No. 2017 Gohap1307 No. 1307);

1. Written test of summary summary trial [Article 2-2 of the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment of No. 2017 Gohap1307];

1. Defendant B’s partial statement

1. Protocol of seizure (Diplomaticphones, etc.) (Evidence No. 6 of the Evidence List No. 2017 Gohap1307) (Article 2-3 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment No. 2017);

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Protocol of seizure (Diplomaticphones, etc.) (Evidence No. 6 of the Evidence List No. 201307) (Article 3 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of No. 2017, 1307);

1. Defendant C’s legal statement

1. Protocol of seizure (Chophones, etc.) (Evidence No. 6 of the Evidence List No. 201307) (Article 4 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of No. 2017, 1307);

1. Defendant D and C’s respective legal statements

1. Protocol of seizure (Chophones, etc.) (No. 6 No. 2017 Gohap1307 No. 1307);

Application of Statutes

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

A. Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, 2 subparag. 3(b), and 30-4 of the Criminal Act (purchase, receipt, delivery, medication, possession, and choice of imprisonment) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. by Defendant B

B. Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. by Defendant A, and Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of receiving and aiding and abetting philopon and receiving and aiding and abetting philop, and choice of imprisonment). Defendant C

Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(b), and Article 30(5) of the Criminal Act (Article 60(1)2, 4(1)3(b), and Article 30(5) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.)

D. Defendant D.

Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Delivery of Handphones, medication, possession, choice of imprisonment), Articles 60(3) and 60(1)2, and 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(b) (Article 60(1) of the Narcotics Control Act (Article 60(1)2, Article 4(1)2, and Article 2 subparag. 1,

1. Mitigation and mitigation (Defendant A);

Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendants);

A. Defendant B

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. ( natives) due to the purchase of 8 kgh with the largest sularphones)

B. Defendant A

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes resulting from the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (compacting) due to the purchase of 8 kgs with the largest sularphones). Defendant C

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., due to the sale of 8 kmphones with the largest fact)

D. Defendant D

Articles 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (compacting) due to the delivery of 4 kmopon from the philopon of the largest 2017.10, 17.17.)

1. Confiscation;

Defendant B, C, and D: The main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

[Defendant B’s confiscation of KRW 17,150,00 (No. 7056 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office 2017No. 7056) was sought by the Prosecutor, but it is not proved that it was a thing provided or intended to be provided for an offense, and it is not confiscated.]

1. Additional collection:

Defendants: proviso to Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act (Grounds for Calculation of Additional Amount)

○ Defendant B: Total of KRW 103,700,000

(1) The amount of KRW 5g 5g x 400,000 per 1g, received from September 6, 2017 and September 7, 2017, + KRW 100,000 per 1g,000,000,000,000 for philophones received from October 13, 2017, + 400,000 per 1g,00 per phiphones administered on October 19, 2017.

○ Defendant C: Total of KRW 103,600,000

Defendant A, who delivered on September 6, 2017 and on July 7, 2017, KRW 400,00 per 1g of opon + KRW 100,000,000 for purchase price of KRW 2kg of opon + KRW 400,000 per 5g of opon, delivered on September 6, 2017, KRW 100 per 1g: Total of KRW 101,60,000 for 5g of opon, delivered on March 10, 2017.

- Of note 4g x 400,000 per 1g of penphones, received on September 6, 2017 and September 7, 201 of the same month + KRW 100,000,000 of the purchase price for 2 kg of penphones

○ Defendant D: Total of KRW 800,800,000

8km X 1g per 50,000 won per 1g of phiphones due to the crime of delivery of each phiphones + 8kg of phiphones due to the crime of attempted sale of phiphones ¡¿ 50,000 won per 1g + Total 2gx 400,000 won per 1g of phiphones due to the crime of medication of each phiphones】

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendants: Determination on the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Summary of the defendant B and his defense counsel

1) The part of the case No. 2017 Highis1277

In collusion with A and M on the criminal facts of 1-A, there is no fact that the Defendant received penphone samples from C, and ② there is no fact that the criminal facts of 1-B in collusion with A to purchase 2 km from C and sold them to other, and there is no fact that 3-related criminal facts are in collusion with M and received 5 g of penphones from a person with no name.

2) The part of the case No. 2017 Highis1307

Defendant: (1) Although there is a fact that he kept 8 km of philophones upon C’s request, he did not purchase 8 km of philophones from C; and (2) there was a fact that he possessed philophones as shown in the facts constituting the crime of 2-B, but it is only part of 8 km of philophones kept in the facts of the crime of 1-B.

B. Summary of the defendant A and his defense counsel

Since Defendant B had been unaware of the fact that Defendant C was engaged in the transaction of philophones with Defendant C, the Defendant did not commit a crime of receiving and purchasing philophones in collusion with Defendant B. The summary of Defendant D and his defense counsel’s assertion

With respect to paragraph 4(a) of the judgment of the case No. 2017 Gohap1277, G was seized by an investigative agency, and the defendant did not possess it. 10.06g of philophones seized by G.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion

A. Receipt and delivery of Handphones on September 6, 2017 and on the 7th day of the same month (crime No. 1-A of 2017 Gohap1277)

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed in the judgment, C’s statement corresponding to this part of the facts charged is reliable. As such, the Defendant received a sample sample from a person with no personal name on September 6, 2017, and then received the sample sample from C again from the person with no personal name on the following day. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion are not acceptable.

1) The credibility of C’s statement

A) C’s statement

(1) On October 20, 2017, C made a statement to the effect that “The Defendant was dried from the Defendant’s house after having received philopon sampling from the person in the name of the deceased on September 14, 2017,” in the interrogation of suspect by the prosecution (363 pages of the investigation record).”

(2) On October 23, 2017, C stated to the effect that, in the second interrogation of the suspect on September 13, 2017, the Defendant, through M in the K Building L, the sampling was made, and that the Defendant’s sampling was smaller. On September 14, 2017, C stated to the effect that the sampling was made to the M, who was on the part of the Defendant, who was on the part of the Defendant, who was on the part of the Defendant, who was on the part of the Defendant, with the sampling from F, and who was on the part of the Defendant, who was on the part of the Defendant, was on the part of the Defendant (No. 512 pages of the Investigation Records).

(3) At the examination of suspect on November 1, 2017, C entered Korea on September 5, 2017, stating that the Defendant had a day to contact with the Defendant, and entered Korea on September 7, 2017. The Defendant changed his/her sampling to the Defendant, and the Defendant demanded his/her sampling back to his/her house. The contact from F on September 6, 2017, 2017, 7: (a) the Defendant moved to a hotel; (b) he/she was sent to the Defendant with a 4 popon from the 0th anniversary of his/her name, he/she was sent to the Defendant, and (c) he/she was given a mopon from the 0th anniversary of his/her name, he/she was given a mopon to the Defendant, and (d) he/she was given a mopon to the Defendant’s name and mopon, and (d) he/she was given a mopon to the Defendant.

(4) C은 2017. 12. 7. 피의자신문에서 '2017. 9. 6. I호텔로 옮겨 샘플을 받은 후 M에게 샘플 받았다고 말했고, N 호텔 앞에서 M와 A가 그곳으로 타고 온 차를 타고 피고인의 집으로 가서 피고인에게 필로폰 샘플을 줬다(수사기록 1037쪽), 피고인이 있는 자리에서 필로폰을 테이블 위에 올려놓으니 피고인이 컵에 물을 떠와서 필로폰을 물속에 떨어트려서 필로폰의 품질을 확인하였다(수사기록 1038쪽). 피고인이 필로폰의 양이 너무 적다고 하면서 더 달라고 하였고, F에게 전화하여 필로폰을 더 달라고 전하였다. 2017. 9. 7. H역 주변에서 M에게 필로폰 샘플을 건네 주었다'는 취지로 진술하였다. (5) C은 제1회 공판기일에 증인으로 출석하여 선서한 다음, '2017. 9. 6. 피고인에게 필로폰 샘플을 갖다 줬고, 피고인이 보낸 A가 운전하는 차를 타고 K건물로 갔다. K건물에 있는 테이블에 필로폰 샘플을 놔뒀고, 피고인은 주방에 가서 투명하고 목이 긴컵을 가지고 왔으며, 필로폰의 효능을 검사하였다. 2017. 9. 7. A와 M가 같이 와 자신의 숙소 근처에서 필로폰 샘플을 넘겼다. 두 번 다 같은 성명불상자로부터 필로폰 샘플을 받았다'는 취지로 진술하였다.

(6) C은 이어 제2회 공판기일에 '2017. 9. 6. A가 운전하고 조수석에 M가 있는 차를 타고 K건물 L호로 갔다. 이후 거실 쇼파에 앉았고, 지퍼가 있어서 닫거나 봉합할 수 있는 비닐 안에 들어있는 샘플을 피고인 앞에 뒀다. 샘플을 M에게 주고 M가 그것을 피고인에게 주었다는 검찰 진술은 사실이 아니다. 자신이 기억하기로는 자신이 거기에서 꺼내어서 피고인에게 줬다. 자신이 비닐 팩을 놓자 피고인이 컵을 가져와서 물을 떠서 필로폰을 집어넣어 실험했고, 그 필로폰이 녹는데 10~20초 정도 걸렸다. 2017. 9. 7. 장갑 안에 들어있던 필로폰 샘플을 M에게 전달했다'는 취지로 진술하였다.

B) The credibility of C’s statements

(1) consistently from the second prosecutor’s office to the examination of suspect, C has consistently stated that the phone phone was delivered twice as indicated in the facts constituting the crime in this Court. 8) Although C changed its statement on the date and time when the phone phone was traded and paid, C made a consistent statement on the fact that the phone was traded. C made a statement on September 13, 2017 and September 14, 2017 on the basis of the message received from F, and the date and time of the crime were corrected to “the date and time of the crime on September 6, 2017 and September 7, 2017” at the third prosecutor’s office interrogation to the effect that the phone was traded and sold on September 14, 2017 to the effect that the phone was traded and sold on September 2, 2017. In view of the fact that C made a statement on September 14, 2017 to the effect that the phone was sold and sold on the phone.

(2) C has made a very detailed statement with regard to the circumstances in Korea, the process in which the Defendant and the Defendant met, the circumstances in which the Defendant delivered the penphones to the Defendant two times, the process of obtaining the penphone samples from the drug manufacturer in Taiwan, the inside form of the K Building, and the situation at the time, etc. In fact, it cannot be said that the credibility of the statement is high, and that the statement on the detailed part is not consistent solely on the ground that it is difficult to find it difficult to experience such fact, and that the statement on the detailed part is not consistent.

(b) Purchase of 2 km of philophones (crime No. 1-B of 2017 Gohap1277)

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence of the judgment, C’s statement corresponding to this part of the facts charged is reliable. As such, the fact that the Defendant purchased 2 km from C on September 16, 2017 and paid the price of KRW 100 million on the same day can be acknowledged. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable.

(i) C’s statement and its credibility

A) C’s statement

(1) On October 20, 2017, C made a statement to the effect that, at the time of the first interrogation of the suspect, there was no transaction between the Defendant and the Defendant at the time of the first interrogation of the suspect. The Defendant made a statement to the effect that: (a) the Defendant did not make a transaction due to the lack of good quality, and (b) his family entered the Republic of Korea; (c) he entered the Republic of Korea; and (d) he was unable to make a transaction due to her children; and (c) even at the time of the second interrogation of the suspect in the prosecution, “(after sampling to the Defendant), the Defendant did not make a transaction on the ground that her phone was not good.”

(2) On November 1, 2017, C, at the time of interrogation of the prosecution, 2017, 2.0 p.m. F. F. F. F. L. L. F. L. L. L. F. L. L. L. L. L.W. L. L. “W. L. L.W. L. L. L. L.W. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L....... L...... L. L. L. L... L........................................ L................................................. L..................................................

(3) On December 7, 2017, C made a statement on 9.14. 14. Dolop 2km to the Defendant at the interrogation of the prosecution, and on September 15, 2017, C made a statement on September 16, 2017 as follows: “The fact that C received cash KRW 100 million from the Defendant at the same place is fit for the question of whether he received cash KRW 100,000,” and “I do not refer to the question of whether he received money at 21:00 on the same day.”

(4) On December 13, 2017, C made a statement that “C” was recorded on September 14, 2017, which was the day before the family enters the Republic of Korea, and that it was received money on September 15, 2017, which was the day before the family enters the Republic of Korea, and (after confirming the content of Handphones confiscated in the prosecutor’s office, it was almost 14 days, and it was 15 days, and it was 16 days later, and it was 16 days later, and it was 16 days later, and it was 17 days later that the Defendant made a statement that it was the date of 17 days later, and that it was 17 days later, which was the date of 16 days later, the Defendant made a statement that it was 10 days later, and that it was 17 days later before the Defendant’s statement that it was written on September 16, 2017.

(5) C appeared as a witness on September 15, 2017 at the first day, and 0 k-phones received 2k-phones at the night. M on September 16, 2017, the Defendant was promised to trade 1k-phones at 00,000 won. On September 16, 2017, the Defendant was using MM on the back of the passenger car (5 pages of the witness examination). The Defendant was standing in the designated place (6 pages of the witness examination). The Defendant was holding a seat on the back of 00,000 won, and the Defendant was holding a seat on the back of 0,000 won, and the Defendant was holding a seat on the back of 0:0,000 won, and the Defendant was holding a seat on the back of 0:0,000 won, and the Defendant was holding a seat on the back of 0,000 won.

B) The credibility of C’s statements

(1) A person prosecuted as the Defendant and his accomplice appeared as a witness of the case and made a statement consistent with the facts charged. C, at the time of interrogation of the third public prosecutor’s office, led to the first confession of this part of the crime at the time of interrogation of the case. This is highly reliable in light of the fact that the confession was made in the absence of any other objective evidence except M’s statement. C consistently makes statements on 2 km transaction where M did not prosecute for the instant case and did not appear as a witness in the court, and even if M did not appear as a witness, it may be subject to punishment continuously.

(2) On November 1, 2017, C made a statement to the effect that, at the time of receiving the purchase price of phiphones from the Defendant and A, the situation where M was absent from the site, namely, that is, the situation where M was made, and that, on the other hand, at the suspect interrogation of the prosecution, the transaction was made one time and 2 km transaction was made, and that the transaction was not made because the quality was not good, and not only in the investigation agency but also in this court, it made a statement again, in detail, in the court about the process of testing the quality of phiphones. In addition, C made a statement to the effect that such statement on the 2 km transaction process and the quality test process was not made without the actual experience, it is detailed and concrete as much as it was impossible to make a statement.

(3) Even when considering the moving route of a passenger car (J) used by the Defendant on September 16, 2017 by GPS, it is consistent with the date and time and place of sale of 2 km of the instant vehicle at the time, the date and time of receipt of the purchase price, and the place where the vehicle’s movement stated C at the time, and the Defendant did not have any explanation to be able to obtain for the vehicle’s movement.

(4) The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that C made a false statement in order for C to take the crime of sentencing more favorable to himself. However, considering that (i) the nature of the crime committed by the person who sells the phiphones is assessed to be more severe than the quality of the crime committed by the purchaser of the phiphones, and such circumstance seems to be well known to C having the record of criminal punishment for narcotics crimes; (ii) the phiphone 8km sold on October 19, 2017 was seized and not distributed in the market; but (iii) the 2km of the phiphone sold on August 16, 2017 seems to have already been distributed in the market. Considering the fact that the nature of the crime of selling the phiphone 2km, the Defendant’s defense counsel’s statement cannot be deemed to be less than that of selling the Dophone 8km, and (iii) considering that the 8km of the phiphone was already seized by the investigative agency, the Defendant’s assertion that C is difficult to accept the above evidence and its credibility of the crime.

(5) In an investigative agency and this court, C made a consistent statement on the date and time of the crime, whether or not the Defendant was at the scene at the time of delivery of 2 km. However, examining the date and time of the crime, C’s previous statement that verified the content of his handphone phone conversations during the 5th interrogation process, and subsequently committed the crime on September 16, 19, as indicated in the facts charged, was corrected to the effect that C’s previous statement was committed on September 16, 199, and it was sufficiently natural, and it was difficult for family members to find out the circumstances in which the statement was made, and it was difficult for them to find out the fact that the family had committed the crime before entering Korea. ② Whether or not the Defendant was at the scene at the time of delivery of 2 km, as well as whether or not the Defendant was at the time of delivery of phiphonephone, it appears to have been reversed due to the lack of consistency between M and M due to the lack of direct signature and conversation between the Defendant and the Defendant at the time of delivery.

(6) The Defendant’s defense counsel asserts to the effect that C’s payment of 500,000 won at the cost of handphones is contrary to the empirical rule, even though the money received from handphones is not the money of C, it would be contrary to the empirical rule. However, C merely appears to have paid A some of the profits that it promised to receive from F, and thus, C cannot doubt the credibility of C’s statement solely on the ground that it was paid to A. Although the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted that he was the counterparty of the transaction. However, considering that C’s statement that “A” was the Defendant’s speech, it appears that C had delivered C’s intent through telephone conversations with M even in a case where M does not exist at the site.

2) As to the circumstances after crimes

The Defendant asserted that Y was Daegu in order to pay dividends to Sitcoin investment projects, and that Y was not Daegu in order to sell Bitcoin, and Y was present in this court as a witness, and the Defendant asserted that Y was consistent with the Defendant’s assertion. However, considering the following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed in the judgment below, Y’s testimony to the effect that the Defendant and Bitcoin was only for the purpose of receiving dividends on the investment, is difficult to believe, and rather, there is a strong doubt that the Defendant did not either dispose of the hitcoin purchased from C or for raising the purchase price.

① The Defendant asserts that Y will be discharged from Daegu to pay dividends for the business related to Bitcoin. However, considering the fact that the Bitcoin investment business is not illegal and is at risk of loss of cash in the course of movement, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s testimony that the Defendant has been discharged from Daegu to pay dividends in cash without using the method of account transfer, etc., and that Y’s testimony that the Defendant has been discharged from Daegu is difficult.

2. Before the Defendant was present as a witness in relation to the instant case, the Defendant sent Y a letter of the following contents to YB:

The money assigned to Hando test is KRW 300 million. At the beginning of March of the next year, the 16th of each month, and at the beginning of May, 2000. The dividends are distributed, at the 16th of each month, at the 1st of the month, at the Daegu, and at the night, at the 1st of the month, at the very low time, and there has been only frequent progress. The dividends have been 7% in the name of the conditions for the investment. The dividends have brought about 5% in that month.

하고의 통화는 위쳇으로 한 것으로 알고 계세요. 작년 추석 전 9월 말쯤에 일단3억 다 받았다고 하세요, 이유는 투자자들의 의사로 회수했다고 아세요. 형 그리고3월 초는 비트코인이 일본에서는 320만 원 정도 했었어요, 일단 컴퓨터로 좀 공부해놓으셔 검찰측에서 가격도 모르고 투자했다 이런식으로 반대신문도 있을 것이요.

The defendant's letter of delivery to the Y is the content of the transaction between the defendant and the Y, and the communication means, the details of the investment recovery, etc. are not simply made to arouse Y's memory, but it seems to have been made to inform the Y of false facts.

③ Rather, in light of the above circumstances, the Defendant: (a) provided C with 100 million won in cash immediately after the Defendant got in Daegu; (b) the Defendant opened a Handphone in the name of the same person with Y and closely exchangeds with the Defendant using the Handphone; and (c) the Defendant was arrested in an investigation agency and is currently prosecuted for narcotics-related cases, it appears that the Defendant either disposed of 2 km of philopon to Y, or procured at least the purchase price therefor. (c) In addition, the Defendant either disposed of 5 g of philopon to Y, or procured at least 5 g of philopon (Article 2 of the Criminal Act as indicated in the judgment on 2017Da1277).

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence of the judgment, i.e., (i) C has consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to this court to consistent with the facts charged; (ii) the Defendant also made a statement that there was a very specific and detailed content of the statement about the drug transaction process; and (iii) the Defendant conspired with M in collusion with M to purchase a large amount of 8 km, as indicated in the facts charged in the judgment on October 13, 2017, and (iv) M appears to have served as a delivery of a penphone sample on behalf of the Defendant; and (iii) the Defendant’s receipt of a penphone can be evaluated as the receipt of the penphone; and (iii) the Defendant appears to have engaged in large-scale drug organization and a penphone transaction by confirming the quality of the penphone; and (v) the Defendant actually purchased 8 km from C with M, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that it was accepted as a part of this part of this case’s phone and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

(d) Purchase of 8km (criminal facts of No. 2017Gohap1307)

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence, C consistently stated that the Defendant sold 8 km from the investigative agency to this court, and it appears that there was no motive to make a false statement that the Defendant sold 8 km. Considering that C’s statement was high credibility, ② the Defendant was subject to seizure of 8 km from C, ③ the Defendant was asked to keep 8 km from the investigative agency, but the Defendant did not appear to have been sealed by the Defendant as a package of 8 km. Considering the fact that F or C, a upper line of narcotics, had been sealed by 8 km to the Defendant, the Defendant did not appear to have been sealed by 8 km, and the Defendant did not appear to have been sealed by the Defendant at the time of seizure of 8 km from the name of the Defendant who was ordered to keep 8 km.

(e) Possession of 5,35 g philophones (criminal facts No. 2-2 of the crime of 2017 Gohap1304);

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence of the court below, prosecutorial investigators arrested the defendant within Qho-gu Seoul building Qho-gu, Gangnam-gu (Seoul District Prosecutors' Office 2017No. 7056), seized 5.35 g (Evidence 14 of Seoul District Prosecutors' Office 2017No. 7056) on the left-hand side of the defendant, and prosecutorial investigators seize 8 km (No. 1 or 11 of the above subparagraphs) on the same day on the philopon 5.35 g (No. 1 or 11 of the above philopon 5.35 g of the above philopon lopon lopon lopon lopon lopon lop lop lop lop lop lopl lopl lopl lopl lopl lopl lopl lopl lopl lopl lopl l.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion

A. Relevant legal principles

1) In order to establish a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, it is necessary to implement a crime through a functional control based on the joint will as a subjective element. Here, the intent of joint processing is insufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act and to allow it without restraint, and it should be one of the two with intent to commit a specific criminal act. The essence of joint principal offender is deemed to have a functional control by division of roles, and the two are distinct in that it has no control over the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do12732, Jan. 10, 2013). Therefore, in order to determine joint principal offender, the relationship of joint principal offender should be determined through the process of realizing the crime, by comprehensively examining the status and role of each person, and the contents of another person’s criminal act, and by using one’s own intent to commit a specific criminal act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do2501, May 10, 2013).

2) An act of aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to direct and indirect acts that facilitate a principal offender’s act while knowing the fact that the principal offender is committing a crime. As such, the so-called aiding and abetting the principal offender’s act of aiding and abetting the principal offender’s act and the principal offender’s act of aiding and abetting and abetting the principal offender ought to be the principal offender’s act of aiding and abetting and abetting the principal offender’s act of aiding and abetting the principal offender. However, inasmuch as such intent is in fact, if the criminal defendant denies it, it is inevitable to prove indirect facts that have considerable relevance to the principal offender in light of the nature of the object. In such a case, what constitutes indirect facts that have considerable relevance, there is no other way to reasonably determine the connection of the fact by using an tight observation or analysis power based on normal experience. In addition, in the case of aiding and abetting, the principal offender’s intent is not necessary to recognize the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, and it is sufficient to understand or anticipate it. In addition, in light of the progress of the trial, if the criminal facts charged, it cannot be recognized ex officio.

B. Whether the Defendant is jointly liable to commit a crime is as follows. However, considering the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone, in collusion with B and M, leads to the transfer of the Defendant’s intent to commit a crime through a functional control, such as the operation of the core progress of the situation leading to the above crime, stopping, or promoting the purchase, it is difficult to view that the Defendant is jointly liable for the receipt of B and M’s penphones, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

1) The Defendant asserts from the investigative agency to the instant court that B had been unaware of the scood, who was the scood, and denies the public bid relationship with B. The Defendant made a statement at the investigative agency that B is irrelevant to the scood transaction. The Defendant was aware of the fact that C was aware of the scood transaction with B, and that C did not have a conversation with the Defendant, and did not clearly state the degree of his participation.

2) B, M, and C communicate in Korean language with the Korean language, and the Defendant appears to have failed to specifically know the process of philopon transaction because the Korean language and Chinese language could not be saved, and even if all of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor were to have exchanged the opinions on the instant crime with B or M, there is no circumstance to presume the Defendant’s joint will, like the fact that the Defendant exchanged the opinions on the instant crime.

3) The Defendant stated that M was accompanied by M when being delivered with a penphone from C on September 7, 2017 by M, but, according to C’s testimony in this court, the above penphone was located under M. A. Thus, even if the Defendant was found to have been exposed from M. as indicated in the facts charged, it cannot be determined that the Defendant was accurately aware of the content of the bill at the time of the Defendant’s act of purchasing 2km. Even in the case of the Defendant’s act of purchasing 2kg of a penphone, the Defendant stated that M was not the Defendant at the time of the Defendant’s release into Daegu, but at the time, B and Y also stated that there was no Defendant at the time, and that there was no material that could have known the conversation between the Defendant and B at the time of the entry into Daegu. Moreover, even according to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, even if the Defendant, at the time of the transaction of narcotics, was accompanied by M. B and only at the scene.

4) The Defendant did not have received any profit from the instant philphone transaction from B. C stated that at the request of B, C gave KRW 500,000 to the Defendant, and the Defendant denied it, and even if the Defendant received KRW 500,000 from C, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant received KRW 50,000 from C, the other party to the instant transaction, and the Defendant distributed the profit from the instant crime.

5) Although an investigative agency confirmed whether the Defendant arrested the Defendant and administered phiphonephones, it did not detect narcotics-related ingredients in the Defendant’s hair and urine. Whether the Defendant is liable for aiding and abetting.

Taking account of the following circumstances, the Defendant, while recognizing the fact that B, C, and M is engaged in the trade of phiphonephones at least dolusison, may recognize the fact that B, and M is driving or accompanied at the time of engaging in the trade of phiphones, and as a result, the Defendant is liable as an aiding and abetting offender who facilitate B’s receipt and purchase of phiphones.

1) The Defendant had been accompanying B or M at the philophone trading site or moving to B, a narcotics trading partner, B. The Defendant had been unaware of the fact of the philophone trading at all times. On the other hand, B had the risk of divulging the philophone trading information, and did not have the philophone trading site accompanied with B or M at the philophone trading site.

2) On September 6, 2017, at the time when C first delivers opphones to B from the K Building L or B inspected opphones, the Defendant appears to have sufficiently been able to view the opphones in light of the size and structure of the K Building L. The Defendant asserted that the opphones were not entirely viewed at that time. However, according to the Defendant’s statement, C’s statement appears to have spent 10 to 20 minutes from the time when C delivered opphones to B to confirm the quality of opphones. Considering that there is a very unusual example, the Defendant was aware of the fact that C and B were traded with opphones from the time when C and B first traded opphones.

3) In addition to the instant case from September 6, 2017 to September 29, 2017, the Defendant was going to Seoul for about 10 to 1 hour when getting off and getting off a motor vehicle or a train in B and Daegu on several occasions. Considering the moving time and staying time, the Defendant appears to have been fully aware of the fact that there was an article to be “direct delivery” to B, and the fact that the article was an illegal article such as a phiphonephone could have been sufficiently known.

4) In fact, the Defendant was on October 19, 2017, when B traded 8km of a philopon, on the top of the vehicle driven by B, and the Defendant was on board the same vehicle when B was carrying the bank containing the 8km of the said 8km onto the S building. The Defendant made a relatively concrete statement on other facts such as whether B was accompanied by the philopon transaction site, the course of movement, etc., and made a statement to the investigative agency to the effect that there is no room for the inspection of the 8km of the said philopon. However, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that there is no room for the investigation of the investigative agency.

Considering the size of seized 8 km and black bags, the Defendant’s assertion that when the person without a name was placed in a vehicle with a philopon, or when the person without a name was employed as the above S building, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion that the person without a name was unable to view the blopon. Rather, considering the aforementioned circumstances, the Defendant appears to have been well aware that the above blopon was illegal goods.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion that the defendant did not participate as accomplice in the crime of purchasing phiphones against B and the crime of receiving phiphones on September 6, 2017 and the 7th of the same month is with merit. However, even if the defendant's criminal facts charged as co-principal of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flag) are acknowledged as criminal facts of aiding and abetting the above defendant's violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flag) without any amendment to the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., even if he

3. Judgment on Defendant D’s assertion

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence of the court below, namely, at the third interrogation of suspect's suspect's suspect's suspect's suspect's interrogation, the defendant asked that "I am deducted from the 25 km of the penphone to administer the penphone at the same time," and continued to answer "I am "I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am we am we am we am we am we am I am I am we can am we am we am we can am we am we am we am we am we am we.....

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

Defendant B, C, and D: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 15 years: Imprisonment for not more than seven years and not more than six months;

2. Scope of the recommended sentencing criteria; and

A. Defendant B

1) Class 1 crime (the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flag) by purchase of phiphonephones 8 km)

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 3 (Type 3) Basic Area (8 years to 11 years)

【Special Convicted Person】

2) Second crime (the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to the purchase of 2 kmphones)

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 3 (Type 3) Basic Area (Type 8 to 11)

【Special Convicted Person】

3) Class 3 crime [Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (compacting) due to 61.72g custody of phiphonephonephones] / [the scope of recommending punishment and the basic area (compact No. 2) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.]

【Special Convicted Person】

4) The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: Imprisonment for not less than 8 years to 19 years; Defendant C

(i) 1 and 2 crimes (the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) by the sale of phiphones).

[Scope of Recommendation] Important Crimes in Type 3 (Type 3). Aggravation (10 to 14 years) (Special Mitigation (Aggravated Mitigation)). In addition, important investigation cooperation / Organizational or professional crimes

2) A third-party crime

[Scope of Recommendation] The weighting area (one year and six months from June to four years) (special mitigation (special mitigation)) of Type 2 (mariju, item (b), item (c), etc.) shall be included in the brokerage of sale and purchase / Systematic or professional crimes

3) The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: Imprisonment of 10 years to 22 years; Defendant D

1) Articles 1 and 2 (the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flag) by delivery of 4 km)

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation Category 3 (Type 3) (Type 3) (10 to 14)

[Special Persons] Organizational or Professional Crimes

2) A third-party crime

[Scope of Recommendation] The weighting area of Category 2 (mariju, flag (b) and (c)) (one year and six months to four years) shall be increased.

[Special Persons] Organizational or Professional Crimes

3) The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: Imprisonment for 10 years to 22 years;

3. Determination of sentence;

In full view of the following circumstances and the defendants' age, character and conduct, intelligence, environment, circumstances before and after the crime, balance of sentencing with the same or similar cases, the punishment shall be determined as ordered.

A. Considering the harm and injury inflicted on individuals and society by the common sentencing factors, there is a need to strictly cope with narcotics crimes in order to protect our society and members from narcotics which have recently been rapidly internationalized, metropolitanized and organized. Narcotics organizations are not only the core members of the organization, but can continuously block and maintain the organization of narcotics through the cooperation of those who share the act of implementation, such as narcotics transport and delivery, and even if they are on the simple transport and delivery, they cannot be assessed against the crime liability. In particular, the crime of this case requires strict punishment of narcotics and violent assistants in other countries as they have engaged in the act of phonephone trading in the Republic of Korea.

B. Defendant B

Defendant led to some crimes, and in particular, there was no proviso to the investigation agency as to the crime of keeping phiphones worth 617g, and voluntarily led to confession of the Defendant, even though there was no proviso on the crime of keeping phiphones. There was a seizure of approximately KRW 8.67 km from the Defendant, and the phiphones were not distributed in the market.

However, the Defendant purchased 10 km or more from C and administered phiphones several times, and possessed a large volume of phiphones. The volume of phiphones handled by the Defendant is about 10.6 km and about 210,000 won, which can be administered at the same time. The Defendant appears to have an independent decision-making authority on whether to deal with phiphones and the terms and conditions as an executive officer of the Japanese violence organization E. However, it is more likely that the degree of participation in the Defendant’s act of purchase of phiphones is more severe than C in trading with the Chinese organization’s order. The reason why it is deemed that the crime of purchase of phiphones is more severe than the crime of sale of phiphones is more likely to spread narcotics compared to the crime of sale of phiphones. Considering the quantity of phiphones purchased, the Defendant’s act of purchase of phiphones seems to be simply premised on sale to an unspecified number of people, and the Defendant appears to have exercised his right to defense from the instant crime.

C. Defendant C

The amount of philophones sold or delivered by the defendant to B exceeds 10 km, and the crime of selling and delivering philophones is serious in terms of the need to prevent the spread of narcotics crimes.

On the other hand, the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes, and appears to be a simple contact for narcotics that connects buyers in Korea under the direction of “F, which is a total book of large-scale philopon organization,” and that the Defendant did not distribute 8 km sold on October 19, 2017. The Defendant provided an important cooperation in the investigation of Defendant D, which sells 8 km.

D. Defendant A

The Defendant knowingly assisted and aided the Defendant to commit the instant crime, even though he/she was aware that the Defendant committed the instant crime. Nevertheless, the Defendant does not seem to have an attitude against the Defendant by denying the instant crime. It is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant.

On the other hand, the Defendant may evaluate that the degree of the commission of each of the crimes in this case is minor, and the benefits acquired from each of the crimes in this case are also less.

E. Defendant D

The Defendant entered the Republic of Korea under the direction from the upper line of the drug organization, and then delivered 8 km to the person with no name, and the Defendant attempted to sell 8 km, but attempted to commit an attempted act on the wind arrested. In addition, the Defendant committed the administration and delivery of phiphones. The amount of phiphones handled by the Defendant is very large, and the phiphones distributed in the market are also 8 km.

However, the Defendant shows an attitude against each of the instant crimes. The Defendant has no record of criminal punishment in the Republic of Korea, and the degree of participation in the instant crime is relatively weak.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged against Defendant B, Defendant A, and Defendant A

On September 16, 2017, at around 13:00, the Defendants conspired to sell approximately 2 kg of philopon to the name-dissected person, who was dissected in Daegu on board STRT at its place.

B. Determination

1) Each suspect interrogation protocol regarding M submitted by the prosecutor to prove this part of the facts charged exists. The Defendants did not agree to the admissibility of each of the above evidences, and M did not appear in this court as a witness, and it cannot be said that M did not recognize the authenticity of the establishment of each suspect interrogation protocol or the statement impossible under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, each of the above evidences cannot be used as evidence.

2) Meanwhile, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, Defendant B, along with Defendant A on September 16, 2017, was delivered 2 km from Defendant B on September 16, 2017, as seen in Article 2-B of the “Determination as to the Defendant’s argument.” In light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, Defendant B, along with Defendant A, was released from SRT to Daegu on September 16, 2017. On the same day, around 18:00, at the H station around H station around the same day after arrival with Defendant A at around 19:50 on the same day, and around H station around H station, KRW 10 million was 50,000,000,000 from the above 10,000 won was 50,000,000,000 won was 10,000,000,000 won was 10,000,000.

However, even upon examining the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is unclear whether Defendant B simply delivered or sold the above phiphones to Defendant B, and even if Defendant B delivered or sold the phiphones to Defendant B, it is unclear whether Defendant B delivered or sold the phiphones to the above Y, or whether the phiphones were delivered or sold through other channels, and even if it is not revealed whether the above phiphones were possessed with 2 km at the time of entering into Daegu, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that this part of the facts charged was proven without reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to prove this part of the facts charged. Accordingly, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove the crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is to be rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Defendant B

A. Summary of the facts charged

1) On September 2, 2017, around 00:30 on September 2, 2017, the Defendant received approximately 5 g philopon from a person who is a V (in the investigation) of Chinese nationality through M residing together in the said residence in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and through M. residing together in the said residence.

2) At around 00:30 on September 4, 2017, the Defendant received approximately 5 g of philopon from the above V through M, which is residing together in the above residence.

B. Determination

There are evidence submitted by the prosecutor to prove this part of the facts charged, and there is a suspect interrogation protocol of M as to the prosecutor. However, each of the above interrogation protocol as stated by M in the capacity of co-offender, and the defendant consented to each of the above interrogation protocol, and since the authenticity and voluntariness of establishment are not proven by the court statement of M, it cannot be used as evidence, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been proven without reasonable doubt. Accordingly, each of the facts charged in this part constitutes the time of innocence, and thus, the defendant is acquitted in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3. Defendant A

A. Summary of the facts charged

1) The Defendant, in collusion with B and M, received phiphones from C on September 6, 2017 and September 7, 2017, as described in subparagraph 1-A of the criminal facts stated in the instant case No. 2017Gohap1277.

2) In collusion with B, the Defendant purchased 2 km from C on September 16, 2017, as described in paragraph (b) of the criminal facts of the instant case No. 1-2017.

3) The Defendant, in collusion with B, purchased 8 km from C on October 19, 2017, as stated in the crime of the instant case No. 2017Gohap1307, as stated in paragraph (1) of the same Article.

B. Determination

As seen earlier, as seen in Section 2 of the part of the "decision on the argument of the defendant and the defense counsel", it is difficult to recognize that the defendant formed a crime community for the crime of receiving or purchasing phiphones with the intention of joint processing with B, M, or that he/she transferred his/her intent through functional control. Therefore, the defendant cannot be held liable for the co-principal with regard to this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, since each of the above facts charged against the defendant constitutes a case of innocence due to lack of proof of crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or as long as it is found guilty of a crime of aiding and abetting the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence)

4. Defendant D

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant, along with F and Taiwann nationality G, agreed to sell philophones into Korea and sell philosopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopop

On September 21, 2017, F opened the bottom of 7 points in a household in the Chinese Mine, concealed approximately 16 km in the penphone, and stored the container in China, and then sent it to the P Building Q in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, a residence of G located in Korea.

On September 27, 2017, the household in which the above phiphonephone was entered was transshipped from Hong Kong to AF on September 9, 22 of the same year and delivered to Incheon on September 27, 2017 to the Defendant and G’s residence Q of the above P building, which is the Defendant and G’s residence.

Accordingly, the defendant, together with F and G, sealed philophones.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles and issues

A) The term “import of psychotropic drugs as prescribed by the Narcotics Control Act” means an act of bringing psychotropic drugs, regardless of their purpose or intention, into the territory of the Republic of Korea, by unloading them from abroad to the territory of the Republic of Korea. Meanwhile, the purpose of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is to carry out necessary regulations in order to prevent the misuse or abuse of psychotropic drugs, etc., and the risk of such danger and injury has already occurred by unloading or bringing them into the ground. As such, the above psychotropic drugs are carried out by unloading or bringing them into the ground from ships or aircraft (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do311, Sept. 23, 2003).

Therefore, in order to establish the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) by the import of phiphones against the defendant as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, it should be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant gathered the import of phiphones from the beginning to F, etc., or was involved in the crime in any form from the dispatch of the household containing the above phiphones to the point of unloading or bringing them into the territory of the Republic of Korea or into the ground. Meanwhile, even if the phiphones contributed to the act of carrying phiphones ex post after entering the territory of Korea from abroad, if the phiphones did not contribute to the act of bringing the phiphones into the territory of Korea from abroad, the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by the import of phiphones cannot be established.

B) At least two co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime do not legally require a certain type of punishment, but only two or more persons commit a combination of intent to jointly process and realize the crime. Although there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if there was a combination of intent to do so in order or implicitly through several persons, the conspiracy relation is established if two or more persons do so, and even if they did not participate directly in the act of the conspiracy, they are held liable for the other co-principal's act as a co-principal, and there is a strict proof to acknowledge it. However, if the defendant recognizes the facts directly involved in the act of the conspiracy and denies the criminal intent, the facts constituting such subjective element should be proven by indirect facts or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of the object, and what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance should be reasonably determined by the method of observation or analysis, based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do1360, Mar. 23, 2004).

C) Therefore, the key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant was aware of the import of the instant phiphone from the beginning, or whether the said phiphone contributed to the entry into the territory of Korea.

2) Specific determination

A) The Defendant heard from F to the Republic of Korea the word “F to set back a brophone number in Korea and to the word “B”, and entered Korea on September 25, 2017, and came to know G for the first time after entering Korea. The Defendant consistently asserted that “AG importing phiphones is maternity,” and that there was no conspiracy to commit a crime of importing F, G and phiphones, as described in this part of the facts charged.

B) The evidence submitted by the prosecutor to prove this part of the facts charged is as follows: Defendant’s statement, investigation report (the process of search and seizure), individual entry and departure status, copies of the monthly charter contract of real estate Q. P building, investigation report (D, G Handphones route), shipment data, etc. According to the above evidence, G9 (G, AH) (G and AH) leased P building Q. for three months on September 17, 2017. The Defendant was living together with G from September 25, 2017 to the arrest of the Republic of Korea. On the other hand, on September 21, 2017, the Defendant opened a cell phone number of the above P.M. (BUFEEBE) to the port of Incheon, and the Defendant’s cell phone number of the P.M. article No. 20179 was removed from the 27 G 2017, and the Defendant was found to have been removed from the 2017 G 2017.

C) However, in light of the fact that the Defendant, who most of the facts charged, including the crime of selling 8 kmphones, has consistently denied the Defendant from the investigative agency to the instant court, to the point that he had consistently made a confession from the investigative agency to the investigation agency, the Defendant entered Korea to the Republic of Korea, and made a statement from the investigation agency that he was the importer under B/L, and there was no evidence to deem that the Defendant had been accurately aware of whether the Defendant already taken part in the criminal act using the phiphones already imported from F or whether the Defendant took part in the criminal act using the phiphones, or whether the phiphones were newly taken part in the criminal act using the phiphones subsequently imported, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant conspired with F and G, and there is no other evidence to support this.

C. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fluence) due to the import of phiphones against the defendant constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to

The presiding judge, the Gimology judge

Judges Kim Gin-young

Judges, Senior Jins

1) As to each of the charges prosecuted against Defendant A as co-principal, the same facts as the facts charged are recognized.

In addition, the facts charged are partially revised and recognized to the extent that it is not likely to substantially disadvantage the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense.

2) At the time of the first interrogation of suspect by the prosecution, the Defendant stated that he had been working as a member of the organized organized organized organized organized organized during the time of the first interrogation (a investigative record 358).

(i) the Party;

3) During together with the written indictment stating that M has transmitted a penphone to A, each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of M as evidence proving this.

However, the defendants did not agree to the evidence as to each of the above evidence, and M, a person making the original statement, appeared as a witness in this case and formed it.

M is in an impossible condition to make a statement under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and only the materials recorded in the record are not recognized.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged cannot be admitted as evidence, and there is no other evidence to prove this part of the facts charged. However, this part of the facts charged is recognized.

Even if it does not exist, the facts charged as to the form of receiving philophones in collusion with Defendant B, as described in the facts charged in the judgment.

Inasmuch as it is merely that part of the judgment is reduced, the criminal suspect is not written in the acquittal portion, but based on the evidence.

The facts charged in the case No. 2017 Gohap1277 were modified and recognized as follows.

4) Only the receipt of philophones:

5) Exclusion from the possession of Kenyas

6) As of September 2017, a nationwide average retail store (1004 pages of investigation records), equal to the following:

7) The average wholesale service provider as of September 2017 is the average wholesale service provider.

8) At the first interrogation, C received a sample sample from a person under whose name the sampling was made over a different mold, and then delivered that sample to the Defendant.

was stated to the effect that it was stated.

9) On October 21, 2017, the Republic of Korea left the Republic of Korea only with Taiwan.