In case where a person who possesses narcotics for the purpose of sale and purchase sells or attempts to sell the narcotics, whether the possession for the purpose of sale and purchase of the narcotics is constituted in addition to the crime of selling the narcotics or attempted sale of the narcotics (affirmative)

In a case where a person who possesses narcotics for the purpose of sale and purchase has commenced or commenced the sale and purchase of the narcotics but is in an attempted crime, such possession is not only in an indivisible relationship with the sale and purchase practice or is evaluated as part of the sale and purchase practice in light of social norms, the crime of the sale and purchase of the narcotics under Article 60(1)1 of the Narcotics Act or the crime of the attempted sale of the narcotics under Article 60(3) and 60(1)1 of the Narcotics Act is established, and the crime of the possession of the narcotics for the purpose of the sale and purchase under Article 60(1)1 of the said Act is established, and the two crimes are in a relationship of substantive concurrent crimes. Even if the possession of the narcotics was temporarily conducted as part of the preparation for the sale and purchase activity, it does not constitute a separate

§ 60(1)1, (3) of the Narcotics Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney O Jae-hun et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 95No2275 delivered on December 28, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. One hundred days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the calculation of each original sentence against the Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In a case where a person who possesses narcotics for the purpose of sale and purchase has commenced or commenced the sale and purchase of the narcotics but is in an attempted crime, such possession is not only in an indivisible relationship with the sale and purchase practice or is evaluated as a part of the sale and purchase practice under social norms, the crime of the sale of narcotics under Article 60 (1) 1 of the Narcotics Act or the crime of the attempted sale of narcotics under Article 60 (3) and 60 (1) 1 of the Narcotics Act is established, and the crime of the possession for the purpose of the sale of narcotics under Article 60 (1) 1 of the said Act is established, and the two crimes are in a relation of substantive concurrent crimes. Even if the possession of the narcotics was temporarily conducted as part of the preparation for the sale, it shall not be deemed that the possession was absorption into the sale and

It is not reasonable to regard that the Narcotics Act, separate from the crime of the sale and purchase of narcotics, stipulates the crime of the possession of narcotics as an independent crime and does not necessarily lead to the possession of narcotics for the purpose of the sale and purchase, so long as the crime of the possession of narcotics for the purpose of the sale and purchase is established by holding the narcotics for the purpose of the sale and purchase prior to the commencement of the sale and purchase act, it is not reasonable to regard that the crime of the possession of narcotics for the purpose of the sale and purchase, which has already been established since the person who possesses the narcotics later went into the sale and purchase act, is absorption into the sale act. Furthermore, if the above possession and purchase act are absorbed into the sale act, if it does not proceed with the commencement of the sale and purchase act, the crime of the possession of narcotics for the purpose of the sale and purchase under Article 60 (1) 1 is established, and if it comes to an attempted crime, the crime of the attempted sale and purchase under Article 60 (3) and 60 (1) 1 is established only, and it can be mitigated to the above legal punishment.

The court below is just in holding that the defendants' act of carrying narcotics in this case constitutes a crime of holding narcotics for the purpose of selling narcotics under Article 60 (1) 1 of the Narcotics Act, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, since the Supreme Court Decision 77Do1380 Decided December 13, 1977 cited by the theory of the lawsuit differs from the case in this case, it is not a precedent to be invoked in this case. There is no reason to argue.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is included in each principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)