logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.10.13 2017고합162
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1,600,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

As to the defendant.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Even if the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, the Defendant handled the Metropoper (one philopon, hereinafter “philopon”) as follows:

1. On December 2015, the Defendant: (a) received a request from D to request scopon from D to request scopon; and (b) contacted E to request scopon; (c) on the same day, 50,000 won of scopon purchase price in E’s residence located in the Yongsan-gu apartment in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; and (d) 1g of scopon; and (c) arranged to trade scopon between E and D by delivering scopons to D at the residence of D located in the area of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul),

2. At the time stated in paragraph 1, the Defendant received approximately 0.1g of philophones purchased from D with paragraph 1 at the above D’s residence without compensation.

3. From February 2016, the Defendant from around February 2016

3. From the request of H to the first patrole, he/she visited E to ask for opphones, and contacted E to ask for opphones, around 22:00 on the same day, he/she arranged to trade opphones between E and H by using a opphone purchase amount of KRW 500,000 in the E’s residence located in the Yongsan-gu apartment of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and approximately KRW 1g of opphones, which was parked in the vicinity of the above apartment.

4. At the time stated in paragraph 3, the Defendant stated in the facts charged in the charge of 0.7g philophones purchased by H along with H at the residence of H located in 1326 of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I building 1, as stated in paragraph 3, that the Defendant and the defense counsel administered a philophones less than 0.1g in order to verify the authenticity of philophones.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant can be found to have administered approximately 0.7g of the 1g philophones purchased prior to H, which is more than half of the half of the 1g philophones purchased prior to H. The fact that the Defendant administered the philophones, and even if recognized as such, it is deemed that there is no risk of substantial disadvantage in the exercise of the defendant'

arrow