2015 Gohap214 A.m. Non-a.

(b) Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.;

1. (a) A;

2. (a) B

Head of the Office (A prosecution) No. 300,000

C Law Firm (private ships for Defendant A)

Attorney Lee In-bok

Attorney D (private ships for Defendant B)

October 1, 2015

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years, and imprisonment for two years and six months, respectively.

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

Seized Metea 3.74g (No. 1) and cream (No. 2) shall be confiscated from Defendant B.

Facts of crime

【Criminal Power】

On December 18, 2014, Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (franking) in the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch on December 18, 2014, and the judgment was finalized on July 10, 2015.

[Criminal Facts]

1. An accusation;

Defendant A, while being tried as a crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fluence), reported a drug offender with Defendant B and E and stored an investigation cooperation and cooperation official book, and used it as a sentencing data for Defendant A’s sentencing, but it was impossible to accumulate public services on the grounds that the personal information of the person subject to information is not specified.

Accordingly, Defendant A listened to the information, such as the personal information of G, which is subject to narcotics transfer from F, and informed Defendant B of the information, including the personal information of G around February 2015, Defendant A, along with E, sent the psychotropic drugs, to G, and sent the psychotropic drugs, to G, and reported it to the investigation agency.

Defendant B delivered upon Defendant A’s request to E, and received KRW 1 million from Defendant A’s wife on February 15, 2015 as the expenses for departure of the Philippines, and delivered it to E, and transferred KRW 500,000 to E on February 20, 2015.

E, upon Defendant A’s request, left the Republic of Korea on February 19, 2015 and called “H”, who is a person charged with philophones, as the recipient of G, sent the philophones to “A at the port of Yang-si in Gyeonggi-do.” On February 20, 2015, H sent approximately 3.74 g of philophones to G with an international cargo delivery, and the said philophones arrive at the port of Incheon at around 30:0 on February 22, 2015.

On February 21, 2015, Defendant B received a invoice from E who returned to the Republic of Korea to G, and on February 22, 2015: around 00, Defendant B sent the invoice to G, and around February 14, 2015, at the Seoul Yangcheon Police Station 1 Team office, Defendant B sent a large quantity of narcotics in the Philippines to G, who is the representative of the Seoul Yangju-si Seoul Metropolitan City, carried them into the Republic of Korea by air mail, and then discovered them and punished G. “The information was reported.”

On February 23, 2015, the Seoul Yangcheon Police Station strong 1 Team called G on February 13, 2015: Around 19, G was arrested under the charge of violation of the Narcotics Control Act (fence) by the above J office.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with E to give false information as if G was closely imported of phiphones, thereby having G made a false accusation for the purpose of having G receive criminal punishment.

2. Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. ( natives);

Defendants are not narcotics handlers.

Nevertheless, the Defendants, in collusion with the above E, brought 3.74 g of philophones into the Incheon Airport from Megara City of the Philippines and imported them.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

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

Defendants: Articles 156 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of accusation, the choice of imprisonment), Articles 58(1)6, 4(1), and 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Narcotics Control Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of import of narcotics, the choice of limited imprisonment)

1. Defendants who voluntarily surrenders to the police: Articles 157, 153, and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (as they have led to confession, there is no accusation)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act / [Article 37(1)2 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which is more severe than punishment (in the case of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed for

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendants: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances are considered for the reasons for sentencing)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant B: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following factors are considered to have been repeated for favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Confiscation;

Defendant B: The main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment;

Defendants: Imprisonment for not less than two years and not more than 6 months but not more than 17 months;

2. Scope of the recommended sentencing criteria (Defendant B1).

(a) A violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence);

[Determination of Type] 2, 3, such as the group of narcotics crimes, export, import, manufacture, etc. (narcotics, flavoringa, item (a) and (b), etc.) [Special flavoring] - Where there is a reason to specifically criticize the motive for the crime

Reduction element - A self-denunciation in the event that there are particularly extenuating circumstances in the commission of a crime or motive for a crime

[Determination of the recommended Area] Reduction Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and not more than five years;

(b) An accusation;

[Determination of Type] High Criminal Group, Type 1 (General Dismissal)

[Special Convicted Persons] Reductions - Self-denunciations/Confessions

[Determination of the recommended Area] Reduction Area

[Scope of Recommendation) Imprisonment with labor for not more than one year. Imprisonment with labor for not less than 2 years and not more than 6 months but not more than 5 years and not more than 6 months [the maximum of the sentence scope for the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (the basic crime) shall be five years in the upper limit of the sentence scope for the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (the act

3. In order for a defendant A to be sentenced to favorable sentencing for other accused cases by having G investigate and punish the crime of this case as a narcotics crime, there are unfavorable circumstances against the defendants, such as the defendants importing scopphones in the Philippines, and the nature of the crime is bad. The defendant A led the instant crime through the defendant B, etc. to create his public service, the defendant A has the criminal records of committing the instant crime three times prior to the instant crime, and the crime related to narcotics is highly likely to harm the health and social safety of the people due to the toxicity of narcotics, etc.

However, the defendants recognized all the crimes of this case, the amount of the penphone imported by the defendants is less than the number of the penphones, and the above penphones are not distributed in Korea before the plaintiff actually arrives at the Incheon National Port of Incheon. Defendant A's act of transmitting the contents of the penphones upon Defendant A's request and remitting KRW 500,000 to E in accordance with Defendant A's instructions. The degree of participation in the act of importing the penphones of this case is relatively low, and Defendant B led Defendant B to an investigation agency on February 28, 2015, six days after the report of G, which led to the confession of the defendants, and G led the defendants to a confession to the investigation agency on February 28, 2015, and each of the crimes of this case committed by Defendant A is favorable to the defendants, taking into account the facts that there are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the previous judgment, as well as the motive, motive, means, and the sentencing guidelines of this case.

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

The presiding judge's seat

Judges Kim Jae-in

Judge Lee Ho-hoon

1) Defendant A constitutes concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, does not apply the sentencing criteria.