logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.06.27 2014고단1061
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Around January 14, 2014, the Defendant, who was not a person handling narcotics, sold approximately KRW 1g of 400,000,000, to a private village type D, which was known through a private village type C, prior to the bus stops in front of the Incheon International Airport, for approximately 40,000,000 psychotropic drugs.

2. The Defendant consistently denies the crime from the investigative agency to the court.

D’s investigative agencies and legal statements that seem to correspond to the facts charged are difficult to believe in light of the following circumstances according to the records.

First, the circumstances in which the defendant was identified as the seller of a philophone are not vague.

① On February 24, 2014, D was arrested and seized 0.11g of philophones, and reversed the statement as “E (on the day of arrest)” by taking retaliation against E, a “Korea pit” as to its source.

However, the facts charged in D include “the fact of receiving philophones from E free of charge on February 24, 2014,” but did not include “the fact of receiving philophones free of charge on February 17, 2014,” which stated as the source of 0.11g at the time of the investigation,” and D acknowledged that the statement of F is false.

② There is an interval of about 30 percent between the time and place in which a phiphone was received from E stated by the investigative agency and the time and place in which the phiphone was administered. In light of the background of the distance movement between the places, the statement is also difficult to believe.

③ Along with the knowledge of E and approximately five to seven years, D had already been aware of the fact that he had been arrested F from E prior to the arrest, and it is difficult to eliminate the possibility that he was identified as the seller of the instant Handphone for the purpose of hiding the existence of E due to fear of retaliation.

Second, it seems that the statement on the time when the phonephone was purchased is not consistent, and the statement is reversed in accordance with the situation according to the investigation agency and the court's enforcement.

(1) The defendant shall enter or depart.

arrow