logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.08.31 2018고단2822
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 27, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act in this court, and completed the execution of the sentence in an Ansan Prison on August 30, 2017, and is not a person dealing with narcotics permitted under the Act.

From Jun. 9, 2018 to Jun. 19, 2018, the Defendant administered the Mebaminic dose (one-time medication) of the Mebaminic Meba (one-time medication) in an irregular manner at the end of the day between Busan and the end of June 19, 2018.

[In regard to this, the defendant/defense counsel: (a) the defendant did not have administered a phiphone during the above period, and is thought to have received the 'balon paper mulberry' by the 'C' or ‘D'; and (b) even if the philophone was administered in anywhere, i.e., gender.

Even if assumed, the facts charged are specified

It is difficult to see that public prosecution should be dismissed.

① In a case where there is a reply to the request of the Director of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation to make an appraisal on the part of the Defendant in the case of violation of the Narcotics Control Act, if there is a response to the assertion, unless there are specific circumstances such as the change of the part of the experiment material, or the mistake or error, in the appraisal which forms the basis of the response, the fact that the part of the Mesa is detected in the part of the river taken from the Defendant. Accordingly, under the logical and empirical rules, the Defendant had administered the Mesacule in the Mesule before collecting the part of the river which is the object of appraisal.

It should be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10937, Feb. 14, 2008). However, among the evidence adopted and examined by this court, there is a reply on June 20, 2018 to the effect that the defendant's Mesacin composition was detected in the urine, and there is a response to the request by the head of the Busan Science Investigation Agency of the National Research and Investigation Agency of the Republic of Korea on June 20, 2018, and there is a defense that is an experimental object in the appraisal that forms

arrow