2016Gohap1301, 2017Gohap150(combined) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.

1. A;

2. B

3. C

Doz. Doz., Maz., Op. (Public Prosecution), Op. (Public Trial)

Law Firm D (for Defendant A)

Attorney E in charge

Attorney F (the defendant B and the defendant C)

March 23, 2017

[Defendant A]

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

One electronic storage book (No. 5 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2016, No. 7250), three face tape (No. 8 of the same evidence), one log tape (No. 9 of the same evidence), one log (No. 10 of the same evidence), two vinyl 10 (No. 11 of the same evidence), one set of rubber lines (No. 12 of the same evidence), one cut (No. 13 of the same evidence), one cellular phone (No. 19 of the same evidence) shall be confiscated from Defendant A, respectively.

1,050,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant A.

The amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge shall be ordered to be paid to Defendant A.

[Defendant B]

Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, with respect to Defendant B, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[Defendant C]

Defendant C shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

Four Assistants seized (Articles 1 through 4 of the total list of seized articles in 2016-type District Prosecutors' Office 2016-type 36850) shall be confiscated from Defendant C, respectively.

745,000 won shall be collected from Defendant C.

Defendant C shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

Criminal History Office

Defendants are not persons handling narcotics.

[2016Gohap1301] (Defendants)

1. Defendant A

A. On September 24, 2016, at a hotel where it is impossible to identify a place below the Thailand, the Defendant received the volume of psychotropic drugs from a person who is not aware of his/her name (hereinafter referred to as “one-name Handphone”), and arrived at the Incheon State’s service port located in Seo-dong, Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon, after hiding it in his/her inner clothes, after boarding a passenger flag departing from the meat or airport on September 27, 2016.

Accordingly, the defendant imported philophones in collusion with a person who could not know his name.

B. On September 29, 2016, according to the direction of a person who is not aware of the above name, the Defendant attached a penphone to the mail box of the building located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan H, and the J that deposited KRW 350,000 to the I account designated by a person who is not aware of the above name.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with a person who could not know his name, sold a phiphone.

C. On October 3, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at the place indicated in the preceding paragraph; (b) at the direction of a person whose name is unknown, posted a phiphone in a mail box; and (c) deposited KRW 3.50,000 to the I Account designated by a person who was not aware of the above name, the J sought the said phiphone.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with a person who could not know his name, sold a phiphone.

D. On October 13, 2016, according to the direction of a person whose name is not known, the Defendant attached a penphone to the mail box of the building located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and L made a 350,000 won deposit into the I account upon request by J, and sought the said penphone.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with a person who could not know his name, sold a phiphone.

E. At around 13:20 on November 22, 2016, the Defendant kept approximately KRW 2.7g of philopon on the NU car parked on the front road of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Accordingly, the defendant possessed a philophone.

2. Defendant B

At around 10:40 on November 26, 2016, the Defendant kept approximately 0.01g of phiphonephone in the entrance port of Jung-gu Incheon International Airport located in Jung-dong, Jung-gu, Incheon.

Accordingly, the defendant possessed a philophone.

3. Defendant C.

A. On November 18, 2016, the Defendant deposited KRW 3.50,00 into the national bank account in the name of the first person designated by a person (one-name “G”) whose name is unknown, and on the same day, sought approximately 0.5 g of opphones in the post near the P Station located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant purchased philophones.

B. On November 18, 2016, the Defendant injected into his arms over two occasions by inserting the Rophone in the Romotoel room located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and dilution with water at the single-use injection machine, and continued to inject into us twice.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with S to administer philophones.

C. On November 22, 2016, a national of the first name designated by a person whose name is unknown, who was designated by the Defendant, to collect KRW 3.50,000 from a criminal account, and to collect the Seoul Seongbuk-gu T and 104 on the same day, and did not achieve that purpose.

Accordingly, the defendant tried to purchase philophones and attempted to purchase philophones.

[2017Gohap150] (Defendant C)

1. On April 8, 2016, the Defendant: (a) transferred KRW 300,000 of the purchase price of philopon to a national bank account used by the winners of name in the ATM machine located in the BTM machine located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government U.S.; and (b) purchased psychotropic drugs by finding approximately 0.2g of philopon in the letter of 302 building located in the building in the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government not more than W.

2. At around 10:30 on the same day as the above paragraph 1 above, the Defendant administered psychotropic drugs by inserting approximately 0.03g of philopon purchased as above 0.03g from among philopon purchased as in paragraph 1, and dilution it into the Defendant’s arms, at around 10:30, the Defendant administered them.

3. At around 13:30 on the same day as the above paragraph 1 above, the Defendant possessed psychotropic drugs by keeping four disposable injection equipment containing approximately 0.17 g in total of opphones in the room of Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu Y. 502.

Summary of Evidence

[2016Gohap1301]

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. A copy of the protocol of suspect examination by the court other than the case, and a copy of the protocol of suspect examination by the court other than the case;

1. Crons of the inspection results of simplified reagents, and written approval for the prosecution;

1. A protocol of seizure (i.e., philophones, sound, etc.), protocol of seizure dated November 22, 2016 (i.e., protocol of seizure) dated November 22, 2016 (ii), protocol of seizure (iii), protocol of seizure dated November 26, 2016 (iv), protocol of seizure dated November 27, 2016 (Voluntary Submission) and respective list of seizure;

1. Copies of records, lists, etc. of out-of-case J seizure;

1. AA dialogue between A and the superior ship, and deposit receipt;

1. Each investigation report suspect A, suspect A, B, accompanied by a copy of the detailed statement of deposit transaction, documents attached to AA dialogue of the suspect C, suspect A, suspect A, C, suspect A, suspect A, suspect A, suspect C, No. 6, No. 7, No. 14, each additional collection charge calculation, confirmation of the purchase price of the Lopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopon, confirmation of the net weight of A, B possessionopopopopopopopopopopopopon, and response to the results of the police examination, etc.;

[Defendant C’s defense counsel asserts that only the confession of Defendant C is due to evidence as to the purchase of penphones as stated in Defendant C’s No. 3(A) of the judgment. The evidence of the confession is sufficient if it is sufficient to recognize that the confession is not processed, but is true, and all of the facts constituting the crime or its essential part is not necessary, and such evidence is sufficient not only to directly evidence but also to indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do470, Apr. 11, 1997). The above evidence out of the evidence presented above falls under C’s examination result of a small and medium-scale trial, written investigation (suspect 1), written investigation report (suspect 3), A, a suspect C), accompanied by evidence No. 66, evidence No. 7, a copy of the identification protocol of an accomplice, a copy of the police suspect interrogation protocol, etc., and the result of appraisal reply as stated in the judgment of Defendant C’s defense counsel on medication.

[2017Gohap150]

1. Defendant C’s statement in the first protocol of the trial of the case No. 2016 Highest 3996 case;

1. At the time of conducting a documentary examination and a written confirmation;

1. Each protocol of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Each investigation report (Attachment to the contents of conversation, results of appraisal by each country and water number, attachment of monthly trends of narcotics, and calculation of additional collection charges);

Application of Statutes

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

(a) Defendant A: Articles 58(1)6, 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Narcotics Control Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of importing phiphonephones, the choice of limited imprisonment), Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of selling phiphones, the choice of imprisonment), Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Narcotics Control Act (the point of holding phiphones, the choice of imprisonment)

(b) Defendant B: Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Narcotics Control Act;

(c) Defendant C: Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, 2 subparag. 3(b) (i.e., purchase of phiphones, medication, possession on April 8, 2016, and choice of imprisonment) of the Narcotics Control Act, Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of phiphones administered on November 18, 2016, the choice of imprisonment), Articles 60(3) and 4(1)2, and 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A and C: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant A: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing below)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant B: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (General Considerations favorable to the reasons for sentencing below)

1. Confiscation7);

Defendant A and C: the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act [the prosecutor is also seeking the confiscation of evidence Nos. 20 to 23 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office that was seized.

However, the above evidence Nos. 20 through 23 appears to be an object that was kept in custody regardless of the criminal act of this case in accordance with the direction of a person whose name is unknown ("G") and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have sufficiently proved that the above evidence Nos. 20 through 23 corresponds to "the goods which were provided or intended to be provided for the criminal act of this case". Thus, it shall not be confiscated.

1. Additional collection:

Defendant A and C: the proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

[Calculation of Amount of Additional Collection]

(a) Defendant A: 1,050,000 won (-350,000 won X 3) in total of the sales proceeds of phiphones sold;

B. Defendant C: 745,000 won (=30,000 won x 0.03g x 0.03g x 0.20g) in total, 745,000 won (=(350,000 won + 45,000 won) + 45,000 won (350,000 won + 350,000 won + 45,000 won) in total, excluding the seized opon among the opon purchased on April 8, 2016, intended to purchase the opon and attempted to purchase the opon on November 22, 2016.

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant A and C: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) The scope of punishment: Imprisonment for a period of two years and six months to twenty-two years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crime: the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (psychotropicism) due to the importation of phiphones;

[Determination of Type] Manufacturing, etc. of Import and Export of Narcotics (Narcotic drugs, perfumea (b), etc.)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 9] Imprisonment of 4 to 7 years

2. Group 1 and 2 concurrent crimes: Crimes of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) by selling phiphones;

[Determination of Types] Trade Mediation, etc. for Narcotics Form 2 (mariju, Do administration (b) and (c), etc.)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment with labor for one year to two years

3) Results according to the guidelines for handling multiple crimes: four years to eight years;

C. Determination of sentence: Crimes related to narcotics with three years imprisonment is not easy to detect due to its characteristics, and the risk of recidivism is high, as well as negative impact on society as a whole due to decryptability and toxicity. The crime of this case is a case in which the defendant imported phiphones into Korea, sold imported phiphones to others on several occasions, and was possessed by the defendant himself, and it is necessary to punish the defendant strictly in light of the specific contents and frequency of the crime.

However, the Defendant’s mistake from an investigative agency to this court is seriously against his or her will, and even after the arrest of the investigation agency, actively cooperated in the investigation of the relevant case to detect a large number of narcotics crimes, and there was no record of punishment for a criminal act before the instant crime was committed. Such circumstances are considered as favorable to the Defendant.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstances of each of the crimes of this case, and various sentencing factors specified in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively considered, but the punishment shall be determined by lowering the lower limit of the recommended sentencing criteria in consideration of the above circumstances.

2. Defendant B

(a) The scope of punishment by sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten years;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Types 3 (Determination of Types 6(b) and (c)), such as medication, simple possession, etc.) of narcotics

[Special Mitigation] Where there is a reason to take special account of the commission of a crime or the motive for the crime.

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, Imprisonment of six months to one year and six months;

(c) Determination of sentence: the one-year narcotics crime suspended for six months of imprisonment is highly likely to cause harm to the whole society as well as the individuals concerned.

Therefore, as long as the defendant possesses philophones even if the amount of cattle is small, it is difficult to see that he is liable for such crime.

However, the Defendant: (a) was able to possess a small amount of phiphonephones from provoking A by chanceing them; (b) had stayed in mere possession of them without going through additional criminal acts, such as administering phiphones; and (c) has seriously reflected the Defendant’s mistake. In addition, the Defendant did not have any record of being punished for the criminal act prior to the instant crime. Such circumstances are considered as favorable to the Defendant.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of each of the crimes of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing factors specified in the records and arguments shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account.

3. Defendant C.

(a) The scope of punishment: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 15 years;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1. Basic crimes and concurrent crimes: Crimes of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flavoking) due to the administration and possession of phiphones;

[Determination of Types 3 (Determination of Types 6(b) and (c)), such as medication, simple possession, etc.) of narcotics

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, 10 months to 2 years of imprisonment

2) Results according to the guidelines for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to 10 months up to 3 years;

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for eighteen years and six months;

The crime of this case is a case in which the defendant purchased or purchased philophones several times and administered or possessed philophones. In particular, the defendant repeatedly commits narcotics crimes by repeatedly committing the crime, such as the purchase, medication, and possession of philophones on April 8, 2016, even though the public prosecution had already been instituted due to the crime of purchase, medication, or possession of philophones, around November 2016, and attempted to purchase philophones, and attempted to purchase philophones, and thus, it is inevitable to punish the defendant.

However, the Defendant has been recognized from an investigative agency to an investigation agency without hiding the Defendant’s criminal act, and subsequently, at the latest, said Defendant would not repeat the same mistake while reflecting his own criminal act. Such circumstances are considered as favorable to the Defendant.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of each of the crimes of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing factors specified in the records and arguments shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account.

The presiding judge, judge Kim Jong-tae

Judges Kim Gin-han

Support for judges' organization

1) The written indictment contains 350,000 won, but in light of the record, it is obvious that it is 350,000 won in writing.

(ii) Evidence Nos. 3 to 13

(iii) Evidence Nos. 1 and 2

(iv) Evidence No. 15, 16

5) The number of stories 19 to 23) S.

7) Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 15, and 16 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office 2016Kahap1301, which is the seized object of the case, was consumed in the entire appraisal, and thus, it is not separately confiscated.

8) The crime of medication of each phiphone by Defendant C is not additionally collected since Defendant C administered a phiphone purchased as above.

9) Although the Defendant actively cooperates in detecting another narcotics crime after arresting an investigative agency, it is difficult to see that such circumstance falls under “important investigative cooperation” (in comparison with the type of narcotics crime applicable to the Defendant, i.e., a more severe type of crime, or even if it falls under the same type, i.e., the number of times and periods of crimes or crimes committed by multiple persons, i.e., a more severe type of crime in terms of the kind of crime, ii) type 4 such as export and import mediation, or type 3 such as the type of crime, i.e., the type of crime, 4 type such as export and import mediation, etc., or 3 type of mass crime, and i.e., a person involved in an investigative agency to the extent that it is possible to prosecute or add a criminal prosecution. However, such circumstance should be considered as a general