Scope of a petition for trial and hearings of public trial;

As to the facts charged that the defendant attempted to export damp drugs, but attempted to export them to customs officers, the court recognized that the defendant possessed them for the purpose of smuggling export, it is not necessary to judge the case for which a request for trial was filed, but committed an illegal act in the judgment of the court against the case for which no request was made.

Articles 246 and 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Busan District Court (75Da456)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The sixty-five days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

Seized Mesa 350g (No. 1) shall be confiscated against the accused.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel is as follows: First, since Article 2 (1) 3 of the damp Medicines Management Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act do not indicate drugs, it is true that the defendant possesses a "Metacode" and thus, such public prosecution should be dismissed by the decision because it does not constitute an offense even if it is true. Even if the defendant's domestic drugs are located in a bonded area, the defendant attempted to export the drugs to Japan and is exposed to customs officers in Busan, but the court below concluded that the defendant's attempt to export the drugs is only the number of packages of possession of the drugs. According to the reasoning of the judgment below's decision that the defendant attempted to contain a false explanation of the facts, or attempted to use a false statement of the facts as stated in Article 38 (1) 1, Article 3 (1), Article 2 (1) 3, and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment below's decision that the defendant attempted to export the drugs for use in Incheon's name and the reasons for appeal.

Therefore, since an appeal is ultimately justified, a party member should reverse the judgment of the court below and render a new judgment in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Criminal facts

At around 20:00 on May 28, 1975, the Defendant purchased the amount of KRW 2,90,00 from a person who does not know of his name on the route in the Jung-gu, Busan Metropolitan City and the Busan Metropolitan City hotel and the end of the Busan Metropolitan City on May 28, 1975 to export it to Japan, and then purchased the amount of KRW 2,90,000 at 1,750,000 (Evidence 1), which is a damp medicine, from a person who does not know of his name on the route in the Jung-gu, Jung-gu, and the Busan Metropolitan City on May 28, 1975, and concealed the market price of KRW 3.50,00,00 in Japan on the speed of the belt. Around 15:00 on June 3, 198, the Defendant attempted to export it

The evidence admitted by the trial court is the same as that entered in the judgment of the court below, and this is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The court below's decision falls under Article 38 (1) 1 and (3), Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3, and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Dangerous Drugs Act. Since the defendant selected and attempted to commit a limited term of imprisonment, the court below's decision has taken into account the circumstances, such as the foreigner's initial crime and the fact that the defendant is a criminal suspect, and the criminal defendant is divided into two years, and the defendant is punished by imprisonment within the scope of the term of punishment which has been reduced pursuant to Articles 55 (1) 3 of the same Act. In accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act, 65 days of the number of detention days before the sentence is included in the above punishment, and 350g of the seized punishment is provided to the defendant under the former part of Article 25 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act, the defendant shall be confiscated pursuant to Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition with the above reasons.

Judges fixed right (Presiding Judge) Standards for each of the two