The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

The Defendant is not a handler of narcotics.

On September 19, 2015, between around 16:00 and 17:00, the Defendant parked on the backway of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City C market, and sold 200,000 won from D and mert campacters (one-day philopon) containing approximately 0.7gg of mecoptycopty (one-day philopon), a local mental medicine.

The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial against the board of directors is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge sure that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do1568, Jul. 28, 2000; 200Do4946, Feb. 9, 2001). In addition, in a case where the issue is whether narcotics are traded or not, in order to acknowledge the conviction only by the statement of the person who purchased narcotics, etc., if there is no objective evidence, such as denying the receipt and delivery of narcotics, etc., the statement by the person who purchased narcotics, etc., must be admissible as well as credibility that can exclude a reasonable doubt.

When determining the credibility of the statement, it is necessary to also examine the rationality, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after the statement itself as well as his human beings, and whether he has an interest in the statement.

In particular, when there is a suspicion of a crime against him and there is a possibility that an investigation may be initiated against him/her, or when an investigation is being conducted, the admissibility of his/her statement may be affected by his/her efforts to escape from an imminent position, even if there is a suspicion of intimidation or revolving by him/her, and the admissibility of his/her statement does not reach the extent that the evidence is denied.