The crime of failing to manufacture finished products due to lack of technology although he/she attempted to manufacture "satisfy";

An impossible crime refers to a case where the risk of occurrence of a result is absolutely impossible due to the nature of a criminal act, and if it was impossible to manufacture a finished product due to the nature of the criminal act, the so-called 's nature is the risk of occurrence of a result', and it is justifiable to treat it as an attempted crime of manufacturing damp drugs, since it was just because it was taken as an attempted crime of manufacturing damp drugs, since it was the process of manufacturing the psychotropic drugs, which is the substance of the psychotropic drug by combining the cryp and veterinary drugs in salt acid, which is the raw material thereof.

Article 25 of the Criminal Act, Article 27 of the Criminal Act, Articles 4 and 42 of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do1793 Delivered on October 10, 1984

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Sap-pap

Daegu High Court Decision 84No1383 delivered on December 28, 1984

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

125 days out of the number of days of detention before the pronouncement of the original judgment shall be included in the original sentence.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the evidence cited by the court of first instance as maintained by the court below after comparing the records, the court below's decision that recognized the facts of the crime against the defendant is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as theory, and an impossible crime refers to the case where the risk of a crime is absolutely impossible due to the nature of the crime, and as such, the defendant conspired to manufacture a "prohyi" term "proh", which is a kind of psychotropic drug, and attempted to manufacture a "prohihyi", which is a kind of drug, but the defendant failed to manufacture the finished product because it was impossible to manufacture the finished product due to the nature of the drug, the above so-called of the defendant is likely to cause the risk of a result. Thus, the court below's decision that caused the crime to be attempted to manufacture damp drugs is justified and there is no violation of the law of misunderstanding the legal principles as to an impossible crime in theory.

2. The decision shall be made ex officio;

According to the records, since it is obvious that the defendant has been detained continuously prior to the institution of public prosecution, in cases where the court below dismisses the appeal of the defendant, it is erroneous that the number of detention days prior to the institution of public prosecution should be included in the original sentence in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act, even though the number of detention days prior to the institution of public prosecution should be included in the original sentence, and it is obvious that this affected the judgment of the court below

Therefore, in accordance with Article 396 of the Criminal Procedure Act, we decide directly on this case.

If the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance examines the grounds for appeal by examining the records, it is just to find the facts constituting a crime against the defendant, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as to an impossible crime due to a violation of the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to an impossible crime, and even considering all the matters which are the conditions for sentencing by the records, the determination of the sentence of the

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and one hundred twenty-five days out of the number of days of detention before the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the principal sentence pursuant to Article 57 of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)