Defendant 1 and three others

Newly Inserted by Act.

Attorneys Loh Pyeong et al.

Applicant 1 et al.

Defendant 1 is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and eight months, by imprisonment for Defendant 2, by imprisonment for one year and six months, by Defendant 3 (Co-defendant 3 of the second instance judgment), by imprisonment for ten months, and by imprisonment for four months (Co-defendant 4 of the second instance judgment) for eight months.

However, with respect to defendants 3 and 4, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant 3 and 4 shall order each of 120 hours of community service and 40 hours of pharmacologic treatment.

736,000 won from Defendant 1, 140,000 won from Defendant 2, and 148,000 won from Defendant 3 and 4, respectively, shall be additionally collected.

Defendant 2 pays 18,00,000 won to 1 applicant for compensation, and 7,000,000 won to 2 applicant for compensation.

The above compensation order may be provisionally executed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to the importation of each Mesa amsacule against Defendant 1 and 2, shall

Defendants are not narcotics handlers, and Defendant 1 was sentenced by the Jeonju District Court on October 19, 2006 to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence) and completed the execution of the sentence on February 28, 2007.

[2010Gohap75]

1. Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by Defendant 1;

A. At around 01:00 on December 9, 2009, Defendant 1 provided approximately 0.3g of tobacco to Defendant 2 at a 2-story room located in △△dong-dong, △△△△△-dong-gu, Maspopon (one philopon; hereinafter “philopon”).

B. (1) At around 01:00 on December 9, 2009, Defendant 1 administered approximately 0.03 g of philopon by dilution in a luxless room on the second floor of the △△△dong located in the Donsan-si, Yan-si.

(2) At around 18:00 on January 7, 2010, Defendant 1 administered 0.03g of philophones by dilution with scopon 0.03g by dilution at the office of the third floor of ○○○○○ Mart located in Man-dong (hereinafter 1 omitted).

(3) At around 18:00 on January 8, 2010, Defendant 1 administered 0.03g of philopon by dilution with aquatic scopic 0.03g at the inscopic inscopic inscopic scopic inscopic scopics inscopics located in

2. Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by Defendant 2;

A. At around 01:00 on December 9, 2009, Defendant 2 received approximately 0.3g of opon phone 0.3g from Defendant 1, as set forth in the above Section 1-A, at the room of △△△△dong located in the Yandong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

B. (1) At around 01:00 on December 9, 2009, Defendant 2 administered approximately 0.03 g of philopon to a coffee at the 2nd floor room located in the △△dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

(2) At around 22:00 on January 7, 2010, Defendant 2 administered approximately 0.03g of philopon to coffee at the home of the above Defendant’s Pungsan-dong (hereinafter referred to as “2 omitted) located in the Mansan-si (hereinafter referred to as “Chopon”).

(3) At around 23:00 on January 11, 2010, Defendant 2 administered approximately 0.03g of philopon into a single-use injection machine, dilution with raw water, in a way of injecting it into a human blood transfusion.

(4) At around 23:00 on January 15, 2010, Defendant 2 administered approximately 0.03 g of philopon at the home room of the above Defendant, and administered them in the above manner.

(5) At around 22:00 on January 26, 2010, Defendant 2 administered approximately 0.03 g of philopon at the home room of the above Defendant, and administered them in the above manner.

(6) At around 23:00 on February 3, 2010, Defendant 2 administered approximately 0.03 g of philopon at the home room of the above Defendant, and administered them in the above manner.

C. (1) At around 18:00 on February 4, 2010, Defendant 2 administered approximately 0.03 ghonon to a coffee at the office of ○○○○ Mart located in the Mansan-dong (hereinafter referred to as “1 omitted”) and 0.03gonon to a coffee.

(2) At around 24:00 on February 10, 2010, Defendant 2 administered approximately 0.03 g of philopon on a coffee.

(3) At around 23:00 on February 18, 2010, Defendant 2 administered approximately 0.03 g of phiphones at the home of the above Defendant’s office in a single-use injection machine, and in a way of injecting them into the sphosome by dilution with raw water.

[2010 Highest 171]

3. Defendant 2’s fraud

A. On November 2007, Defendant 2 made a telephone call to 2, an applicant for compensation to the Defendant 2, the Defendant 2, who was the victim, and called “Nonindicted 4, an applicant for compensation, was engaged in the business of inputting the game program at each time of the country, and was punished by KRW 700,000 per day. When investing money, Defendant 2 paid the principal of investment with the total of KRW 700,000 per day and paid the following profits.” However, at the time, Nonindicted 4 entered the illegal gambling game program, and accordingly, Defendant 2 did not have any intent or ability to pay the principal and pay the profits, as agreed upon by the victim, even if having received the investment money from the victim.

As above, Defendant 2 deceivings the victim 2, who is the applicant for compensation, and he acquired by transfer the total sum of KRW 12 million from the above victim to the account of Non-Indicted 5's Han Bank designated by Defendant 2 as investment money, including KRW 5 million on December 15, 2007 and KRW 7 million on December 16, 2007.

B. On November 2007, Defendant 2 called Defendant 1, an applicant for compensation for a police officer, called “Igree Nonindicted 4, an applicant for compensation, was engaged in the business of inputting a game program at each time in the country, and was punished by KRW 700,000 per day. When investing money, I would pay the principal of investment with KRW 700,000 per day, and then would pay the following profits.” However, at the time, Defendant 2 did not have any intent or ability to pay the principal and pay the profits as agreed upon even if Igree receive the investment money from the victim.”

Defendant 2, as above, by deceiving the victim 1 who is the applicant for compensation, received a total of KRW 18 million from the above victim to the account of Nonindicted Party 6’s national bank designated by Defendant 2 on December 17, 2007. On December 18, 2007, Defendant 2 received a cash amount of KRW 1,8 million from a high-speed bus terminal located in Geumcheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on December 18, 2007.

[2010 Highest 177]

4. Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) by Defendants 1, 3, and 4;

A. Defendant 1

Defendant 1, around 19:00 on March 19, 2010, at the fifth floor room of inn, the fifth floor of inn, the radio district located in the Sctop Mail-si, Defendant 3, and 4, together with Defendant 3 and 4, divided approximately 0.03 g of psychotropic drugs, and administered them in a way that they are put in the respective instant cup and in a coffee.

In addition, Defendant 1 delivered approximately 0.12 g in total, which is 0.06g of philophones sealed by Defendant 3 and 4 in paper.

Defendant 1 administered psychotropic drugs once, and delivered them once.

B. Defendant 3

Defendant 3 administered 0.03 g of philophones from Defendant 1 at the time, place, and Defendant 3 received approximately 0.03 g of philophones in the coffee of the paper cups.

In addition, Defendant 3 was issued approximately 0.06 g of philopon, which was sealed in paper from Defendant 1’s seat.

Defendant 3 administered psychotropic drugs once, and accepted them once.

C. Defendant 4

Defendant 4 administered 0.03g of philophones from Defendant 1 at the date, time, place, and place described in the above Section 4-A, and administered them in a way of cryping to the coffee of paper cups.

Defendant 4 was issued approximately 0.06 g of philopon, which was sealed in paper from Defendant 1’s seat.

Defendant 4 administered psychotropic drugs once, and accepted them once.

Each fact of Nos. 1 and 2

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1 and 2;

1. An explanatory note (written request for an appraisal by a panel of the National Science Investigation Agency);

1. The notification of correction of the request for appraisal (the secretary of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation);

1. A statement of fact-finding by the chief secretary of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation;

1. Investigation report (report on the market price of phiphonephones);

Facts No. 3

1. Defendant 2’s legal statement

1. Each police officer's statement on the applicant for compensation 1, 2, 5, and 6

1. Complaint;

1. A copy of a loan certificate, a copy of a passbook of the former bank, and a copy of each passbook of the foreign exchange bank;

1. A criminal investigation report (related to accounts of reference witnesses), an investigation report (related to the specification of reference witnesses);

1. A copy of the specification of request for non-compliance (Non-Indicted 6) and the specification of transactions by receiving period (Non-Indicted 5)

Facts No. 4

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1, 3, and 4 in part;

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant 1

1. Some statements of the police interrogation protocol against the defendant 3 and 4;

1. A copy of the investigation report (related to the case investigation among the statements made by Defendant 1 of the suspect);

1. Requests for appraisal made on June 8, 2010;

Before the judgment (defendant 1): Criminal history records inquiry and investigation report (defendant 1's confirmation report)

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

A. Defendant 1

○ Delivery of Handphones: Articles 60(1)3, 4(1), and 2 subparag. 4(b) (Optional to Imprisonment) of the Narcotics Control Act

000 Docon medication: Articles 60(1)3, 4(1), and 2 subparag. 4(b) (Optional to Imprisonment) of the Narcotics Control Act

B. Defendant 2

○ point of receipt of philophones: Articles 60(1)3, 4(1), and 2 subparag. 4(b) of the Narcotics Control Act (Optional to Imprisonment)

000 Docon medication: Articles 60(1)3, 4(1), and 2 subparag. 4(b) (Optional to Imprisonment) of the Narcotics Control Act

○ Fraud: Article 347(1) of each Criminal Code (Selection of Imprisonment)

C. Defendant 3

○ point of receipt of philophones: Articles 60(1)3, 4(1), and 2 subparag. 4(b) of the Narcotics Control Act (Optional to Imprisonment)

000 Docon medication: Articles 60(1)3, 4(1), and 2 subparag. 4(b) (Optional to Imprisonment) of the Narcotics Control Act

D. Defendant 4

○ point of receipt of philophones: Articles 60(1)3, 4(1), and 2 subparag. 4(b) of the Narcotics Control Act (Optional to Imprisonment)

000 Docon medication: Articles 60(1)3, 4(1), and 2 subparag. 4(b) (Optional to Imprisonment) of the Narcotics Control Act

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 (Crime under paragraph (1) of Judgment of Defendant 1 of Criminal Act)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendants);

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution (defendants 3 and 4);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code (The following extenuating Conditions for Sentencing)

1. Orders to provide community service and attend lectures (defendants 3 and 4);

Article 62-2 of each Criminal Code, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

1. Additional collection:

The proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

○ 피고인 1 : 736,000원[= (필로폰 1회 투약분 가격 100,000원 × 4회) + {필로폰 1ｇ당 전주지역 소매가격 800,000원 × (0.3g + 0.12g)}]

○ 피고인 2 : 1,140,000원[= (필로폰 1회 투약분 가격 100,000원 × 9회) + (필로폰 1ｇ당 전주지역 소매가격 800,000원 × 0.3g)]

○ 피고인 3, 4 : 각 148,000원[= (필로폰 1회 투약분 가격 100,000원 × 1회) + (필로폰 1ｇ당 전주지역 소매가격 800,000원 × 0.06g)]

1. Orders for compensation (Defendant 2);

Articles 25(1), 31(1), and 31(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

1. Declaration of provisional execution (Defendant 2);

Article 31(3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings

1. Defendant 1

Defendant 1’s principal crime is not very good in the legislative purport of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which strictly limits the medication, etc. in order to prevent serious harm caused by the misuse or abuse of phiphones, and it is necessary to sentence Defendant 1 to Defendant 1 in light of the fact that Defendant 1 had been punished for the same kind of crime, several times during the period of repeated crimes, and that the crime of this case was committed again during the period of repeated crimes.

However, taking into account all the circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing specified in the instant case, such as the Defendant 1’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission.

2. Defendant 2

Defendant 2’s principal crime is the receipt of psychotropic drugs-related phiphones or the direct medication of phiphones, and the crime is not very good in the legislative purport of the Narcotics Control Act. Defendant 2 administered phiphones over several occasions, and Defendant 2 did not properly recover from damage to the victims of fraud. In light of the above, Defendant 2 needs to be sentenced to punishment.

However, taking into account all the circumstances, such as the fact that Defendant 2 recognizes and reflects his criminal act, the fact that he surrenderss to an investigative agency, the fact that Defendant 2 does not have any criminal record exceeding the same criminal record and fine, and the above Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the criminal act, and the circumstances after the criminal act, etc., the punishment as the order shall be determined.

3. Defendant 3, 4

Defendant 3 and Defendant 4’s principal crime is the administration of psychotropic drugs, and is given or received from Defendant 1, and it is not good in the legislative purport of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which strictly limits the administration, etc. in order to prevent any serious harm caused by the misuse or abuse of phiphones.

However, Defendant 3 and 4 recognize all their crimes and reflects them, Defendant 3 and 4's receipt and administration of phiphonephones reach one time, and Defendant 3 and 4 did not have the same criminal record, and all other circumstances, including the above Defendants' age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the execution of the punishment is suspended and the sentence is determined as per Disposition.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were gathered with Nonindicted 1 in China to import psychotropic drugs, through the so-called luso-called psychotropic grain imported from the Chinese Cheongdo.

(1) On January 4, 2010, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 collected 1.5 million won each of their own phiphones and remitted the total amount of KRW 3 million to an account under the name of “JINJYUN”, which Nonindicted 1 known.

At around 10:00 on January 6, 2010, Non-Indicted 1 requested Non-Indicted 2 to put a white plastic paper containing approximately twog of philophones into grain spons, which is an agricultural product wholesale market located in the Chinese Cheongdo Port, and deliver it to the Incheon Port in Korea.

피고인 1은 2010. 1. 7. 11:00경 인천 제2국제 여객터미널에서, 청도발 인천행 여객선을 타고 입국한 공소외 2에게 배삯 13만 원을 지급하고 필로폰 약 2g이 들어있는 곡물포대를 건네받았다.

At around 18:00 on January 7, 2010, Defendant 1 and 2 divided one gramphonephone, imported as above, from the office of the third floor of ○○○○ Marart located in Ma-dong (hereinafter omitted) Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

(2) On January 29, 2010, around 20:37, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 collected KRW 2 million each of the purchase price for each of the phiphones and remitted KRW 4 million to the account in the name of “JINIYUN”, which Nonindicted Party 1 informed to him.

At around 10:00 on February 3, 2010, Non-Indicted 1 requested Non-Indicted 2 to put a white plastic paper containing approximately 5g of philopon into grain spopon at the top of the Korean Agricultural Water Complex, which is an agricultural product wholesale market in the Chinese Cheongdo, and deliver it to the Incheon Port in Korea.

공소외 3은 피고인 1, 2의 부탁을 받아 2010. 2. 4. 11:00경 인천 제2국제 여객터미널에서, 청도발 인천행 여객선을 타고 입국한 공소외 2에게 배삯 20만 원을 지급하고 필로폰 약 5g이 들어있는 곡물포대를 건네받았다.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, around 18:00 on February 4, 2010, at the office of the third floor of the above ○○○○ Mart, 2010, approximately 5 g philopon was cut from Nonindicted 3 who was unaware of the circumstances and divided by 2.5 g.

As a result, Defendant 1 and 2 imported psychotropic drugs twice in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1.

B. Defendant 1 et al., based on the so-called mal., imported grain from China’s Cheongdo, intended to import psychotropic drugs (one-day, one-way, and phiphones) from China.

At around 10:00 on December 7, 2009, Non-Indicted 1 requested Non-Indicted 2 to put the vinyl paper, which contains approximately 1g of phiphonephones, at the top of the Korean Agricultural Water Complex, which is an agricultural product wholesale market in the Chinese Cheongdo, into the grain package, and deliver it to Non-Indicted 2 to the Incheon Port in Korea.

피고인 1은 2009. 12. 8. 11:00경 인천 제2국제 여객터미널에서, 청도발 인천행여객선을 타고 입국한 공소외 2에게 배삯 13만 원을 지급하고 필로폰 약 1g이 들어 있는 곡물포대를 건네받았다.

Defendant 1 imported psychotropic drugs once in collusion with Nonindicted 1 as above.

2. The defendant 1 and 2's assertion

Defendant 1 and 2 asserted that they purchased philophones through Nonindicted Party 1 on three occasions, including December 8, 2009, January 7, 2010, and February 4, 2010, they were aware that the philophones purchased through Nonindicted Party 1 were brought into China, and that they were sent by Nonindicted Party 1 residing in Korea. Thus, they did not have any criminal intent to the philophones import.

3. Determination

A. According to the prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against Defendant 1 and 2, the police statement against Nonindicted 2, the investigation report (verification of part of the suspect deposit account), etc.: ① Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 3 moved to the Incheon International Passenger Terminal with Nonindicted 3 on or around December 8, 2009, and brought Nonindicted 3 out the grain package concealed from Nonindicted 2; ② around January 7, 2010, Nonindicted 3 and Defendant 2 moved to the Incheon International Passenger Terminal, and Nonindicted 3 took off the grain package concealed from Nonindicted 2 to 00,000 won, ③ Nonindicted 3, on or around February 4, 2010, delivered KRW 00 to Defendant 20,000 from the Incheon International Passenger Terminal; ④ Defendant 2,000,000,000 won, Defendant 1 and 2,000 won, respectively, delivered the purchase price in the name of Defendant 2 to 30,017.

B. However, as to whether Defendant 1 and 2 had a criminal intent to bring phiphones into the Republic of Korea from China, that is, whether Defendant 1 and 2 had a criminal intent to commit an act of importing phiphones, there are evidence that Defendant 1 and 2 knew that phiphones purchased from Nonindicted 1 and 2 are brought in from China, each police officer and prosecutor's protocol against Defendant 1 and 2, each police officer's legal statement against Nonindicted 2 and 3, each police protocol against Nonindicted 2 and 3, investigation report (personal confirmation of part of the suspect deposit account), investigation report (financial account investigation and investigation related to merchant ships), investigation report, etc.

(1) First of all, Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies not only to the case where the interrogation protocol of the accused prepared by investigation agency other than the public prosecutor is admitted as evidence of guilt, but also to the case where the interrogation protocol of the accused or the suspect prepared by investigation agency other than the public prosecutor is adopted as evidence of guilt against the accused. The interrogation protocol of the investigation agency other than the public prosecutor for the accused or the suspect who has co-offender relation with the accused or co-offender relation with the accused is admitted as evidence of guilt. Even if the authenticity of the protocol is acknowledged by the suspect's statement, if the defendant denies the contents of the protocol on the trial date (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Do7185 delivered on July 15, 204, etc.). The police interrogation protocol of the defendant 1 and 2 against the accused is denied as to the interrogation protocol of the police suspect of the accused or the suspect prepared by the investigation agency other than the public prosecutor, and it is not admissible as evidence, and it is not admissible as evidence by the defendant 1 and the witness at the trial date.

(2) In addition, Nonindicted 2 made a statement at the police station that: (a) Nonindicted 2 arrived at the Incheon International Passenger Terminal on three occasions in the Chinese Cheongdo; and (b) Nonindicted 2 gave the grain boom; (c) Nonindicted 2 made a statement that he was able to obtain the grain bomb from Nonindicted 2 at the Incheon International Passenger Terminal on December 2009; (b) read Nonindicted 3 and Defendant 2’s photographs; and (c) made a statement that Nonindicted 2 gave the grain bomb around January 7, 2010 at the Incheon International Passenger Terminal; and (d) Nonindicted 2 gave the grain bomb at the Incheon International Passenger Terminal; (c) Nonindicted 2’s first statement that Nonindicted 3 and Defendant 2 were 3’s grain bomb; and (e) it was difficult for Nonindicted 2 to conclude that he was bombing from the Incheon International Passenger Terminal on February 4, 2010.

(3) Meanwhile, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 at each prosecutor’s office: (a) together with Nonindicted 3 on December 4, 2009, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2: (b) stated to the effect that Defendant 1 was fluored with the Incheon International Passenger Terminal, and was fluored with the grain package in which Nonindicted 3 was concealed from his name from his name, and (c) around January 7, 2010, Defendant 3 and Defendant 2 were fluord with the Incheon International Passenger Terminal, and brought up the grain package in which Nonindicted 3 was concealed from his name, from his name, and (d) around February 4, 2010, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were suspected to have entered the Incheon International Passenger Terminal, and that it was suspected that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were fluoring with his name, and that it was suspected that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were fluoring with the Incheon International Passenger Terminal.

However, Defendant 1 and 2: (a) knew that the phone number was distributed domestically; (b) Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 did not know that the phone number was imported from Nonindicted Party 2; (c) Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 were Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 were Nonindicted Party 3’s phone number at the time of Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2’s entry into the Incheon International Passenger Terminal; and (d) Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 did not appear to have known that the phone number was 0 Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2’s phone number at the time of Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2’s call; (b) Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 received 0 Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2’s phone number at the time of Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2’s entry into the account; and (c) Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 did not appear to have known that the phone number was 070.

(4) It is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant 1 and 2 had a criminal intent to commit the act of bringing phiphonephones from China only with an investigation report (personal entry or departure status), investigation report (part confirmation of suspect deposit account), investigation report (financial account investigation and merchant-related investigation) and investigation report (financial account investigation and merchant-related investigation). There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the facts charged in this case, the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to the import of phiphones against Defendant 1 and 2 constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the court acquitted each of the facts charged in this part under the latter part of

Judges Mag-ro (Presiding Judge)