2016Gohap804 Narcotics Control Act, etc. (fence) and narcotics control officials

Violation of Chinese law (marijuana)

A

A new post, Kim-goods (public trial)

Attorney B

January 20, 2017

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Seized evidence referred to in subparagraphs 1, 3 through 8, 12 through 21, and 27 through 29 shall be confiscated.

26,174,600 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge shall be ordered to be paid provisionally.

Criminal facts

Despite the fact that the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, the Defendant treated psychotropic drugs and marijuana as follows:

After receiving a proposal from C to sell narcotics together, the Defendant accepted the proposal, and thereafter, C purchased narcotics, put the advertisement of selling narcotics on the Internet website, and received the purchase price from the purchaser of narcotics as bitcoin, and the Defendant took the role of taking over the narcotics from C to put them in a certain place, and allowing the buyer to search for the narcotics.

1. Receipt and purchase of narcotics;

A. On January 2016, 2016, the Defendant received lsD 1,000 in the shape of postage stamps sold from C to the purchasers of narcotics, etc. from the Seocho-gu Seoul E-ro.

B. On July 15, 2016, the Defendant, in collusion with C, purchased marijuana 140g of the hemp 140g that C orders from one person G in return for the purchase of it, and received approximately 0.43g of the MMA 5g and 5-Flor-DB (a similar body of psychotropic drugs JWH-018, which is a psychotropic drug; hereinafter referred to as “synthesis marijuana”), respectively, through Kwikset service in front of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

C. On July 19, 2016, the Defendant, in collusion with C, ordered LSD to a person without a name (Internet website H), and purchased LSD 15 by means of finding 15 copies of LSD posted by the person without a name, who was the person with a name, belonging to Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I.

D. On July 21, 2016, the Defendant, in collusion with C, received ls 599 ordered by C from one of the F street in front of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, through Kwikset Service, and purchased ls 59 for the purchase of the ls.

2. Sale of narcotics;

(a) Sale and grant of lsD without compensation;

1) On May 2016, the Defendant, in collusion with C, issued L without compensation a lsd 1 copy to L in a way that had L find it by attaching lsd 1 to the front male toilet changeer located in Dongjak-gu Seoul, Dongjak-gu, Seoul.

2) On June 2, 2016, in collusion with C, the Defendant issued lsD three adjacent bus stops located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government M by attaching lsD three adjacent to the outlet, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, to L. Around June 2, 2016, the Defendant sold lsD three copies with bitcos equivalent to 2.10,000 won.

3) On June 10, 2016, the Defendant, in collusion with C, set up three ls locked collection boxes near Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, with L to search for it, and received 2.10,000 won as the price, and sold ls 3 copies with LSD.

4) On July 22, 2016, in collusion with C, the Defendant: (a) attached lsD two pages under the air conditioner located on the alleyway adjacent to the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government P; (b) attached lsD two; and (c) sold lsD two copies with the price that was not paid.

5) On July 24, 2016, the Defendant, in collusion with C, posted LSD 95 LSD 95 under Q Q in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and caused one-person S to find it. The Defendant received ls95 money from the price and sold LSD 95.

(b) Sale of marijuana;

1) On July 20, 2016, in collusion with C, the Defendant: (a) opened a mail box in front of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul, with a newspaper attached one g of a shot-mari, so that he/she was found to have a person under his/her name, and sold it by receiving KRW 110,000,000 as the price therefor.

2) On July 24, 2016, around 13:34, 2016, the Defendant, in collusion with C, placed one g of hemp in the collection of clothes in front of the Yongsan-gu Seoul Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government U.U., and had a name-free winner (D. 'V') find it. The Defendant received KRW 110,000 from the price and sold it.

3) On July 24, 2016, the Defendant, in collusion with C on July 24, 2016, posted approximately 1g of marijuana to the national flag belt in front of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Yongsan-gu, and had a name-free box (hereinafter referred to as "one name X") find it, and received KRW 110,000 from the price and sold it.

4) On July 24, 2016, the Defendant, in collusion with C on July 24, 2016, up to 13:57, posted approximately 2g of hemp at the bus bus stops located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Yongsan-gu, a bicycle storage facility, to have a name-free winner (hereinafter referred to as "YY") find it, and received 220,000 won as the price and sold it.

5) On July 24, 2016, at around 14:22, 2016, the Defendant, in collusion with C, had a person under non-name (hereinafter referred to as "AA") receive and sell the 110,000 won of the price by attaching 1g of hemp in collecting the clothes before Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

6) On July 24, 2016, at around 14:29, the Defendant, in collusion with C, had a person under his name (hereinafter referred to as “AC”) receive and sell a 110,000 won of the price, by attaching 1g of marijuana to the post box prior to Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AB.

7) On July 24, 2016, the Defendant, in collusion with C on July 24, 2016, up to 14:47, attached approximately 1g of marijuana to the first column of male toilet located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and had a name-free box (hereinafter referred to as “AE”), and sold it with KRW 110,000,000 as the price.

3. Possession of narcotics;

A. At around 08:30 on July 25, 2016, the Defendant, at around 08:30, carried, with the Defendant’s residence of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AF 205, the Defendant, holding marijuana and lsD for the purpose of selling and buying marijuana 110.95g and lsD 15 at the head of the Seocho-gu, Seoul.

B. At around 11:40 on July 26, 2016, the Defendant: (a) kept lsD with a view to storing and selling ls529 by placing ls529 in the Defendant’s residential cooling house and the container room; and (b) kept MP1.63g in the cooling house and the container room.2)

4. Smoking in marijuana.

At around 18:00 on July 24, 2016, the Defendant smoked by inserting approximately 0.1g of marijuana to the pipe at the residence of the Defendant as described in the above 3-A, and attaching a fire to it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police station and each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Copy of each protocol of suspect examination of L by the police;

1. Statement to AG by the police;

1. A reply to inquiry by the National Scientific Investigative Institute, and a reply to inquiry by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety;

1. Each protocol of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Each request for appraisal (the sequence 51,59,70 of the evidence list);

1. Domestic investigation reports (in the course of internal investigation), internal investigation reports (in the course of internal investigation) (in the course of internal investigation, CCTV tracking reports), internal investigation reports (in the course of movement of a suspect), investigation reports (in the course of investigation of a suspect's transportation card), investigation reports (in the course of investigation of an accomplice), investigation reports (in the course of execution of a warrant for search, seizure, and verification of an application of an account), investigation reports (in the case of a suspect's crimes), investigation reports (in the case of the cards used by a suspect), investigation reports (in the case of the sales of narcotics posted by a suspect), investigation reports (in the case of the sales of narcotics handled by a suspect), investigation reports (in the case of the Internet site opened by a suspect A), investigation reports (in the case of bitD), investigation reports (in the case of bitcos used by a suspect), investigation reports (in the course of entry and departure of a suspect), investigation reports (in the course of investigation reports), report on the results of investigation (in the course of investigation), notification related to the seizure, notification on the results of an investigation report (in the investigation report), and notification of CCTV attachment report and notification of CCTV.

1. Records of CCTV tracking and investigating the suspected victim's moving routes, data related to the use of the suspected victim's card, credit card inquiries by the cyber investigation portal system, records of card use, advertisements posted by AI, details of the completion of transactions, the stamp's inspection and confirmation document, the document printed out the site opened by C, and photographs of the AH conversation;

Application of Statutes

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

(a) Criminal facts No. 1-A: Articles 58 (1) 3, 3 subparagraph 5, and 2 subparagraph 3 (a) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (the point of receiving lsD and the choice of limited imprisonment);

B. Criminal facts No. 1-B: Article 1 subparag. 1 of the Addenda to the Narcotics Control Act (amended by Act No. 14019, Feb. 3, 2016); Articles 59(1)7 and 3 subparag. 9 of the former Narcotics Control Act (amended by Act No. 14019, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 60(1)2 and 4(1)1 and 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Narcotics Control Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 14019, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same)

(c) Crime No. 1-C. : Articles 58 (1) 3, 3 subparagraph 5, and 2 subparagraph 3 (a) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of lsD purchase and the choice of limited imprisonment);

(d) Criminal No. 2-A: Articles 58 (1) 3, 3 subparagraph 5, and 2 subparagraph 3 (a) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of receiving and selling lsD and the choice of limited imprisonment);

(e) Facts of crime No. 2-B: Subparagraph 1 of Article 1 of the Addenda to the Narcotics Control Act ( February 3, 2016), Articles 59(1)7 and 3 subparag. 9 of the former Narcotics Control Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of sale of marijuana);

(f) Facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court: Article 1 subparagraph 1 of the Addenda to the Narcotics Control Act (amended by February 3, 2016), Article 59 (1) 7, Article 3 subparagraph 9 of the former Narcotics Control Act (the possession of marijuana for the purpose of trade), Article 58 (1) 3, subparagraph 5 of Article 3, subparagraph 3 (a) of Article 2 (Article 58 (1) of the Narcotics Control Act (the possession of marijuana for the purpose of trade, the selection of limited imprisonment), Article 59 (1) 5, subparagraph 5 of Article 3, subparagraph 3 (a) of Article 2 of the Narcotics Control Act (the possession of synthetic marijuana), Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the former Narcotics Control Act (the selection of imprisonment with prison labor)

(g) Facts constituting the crime under paragraph (4) of the same Article: Articles 61 (1) 4 (a) and 3 subparagraph 10 (a) (the point of smoking marijuana and the choice of imprisonment) of the Narcotics Control Act;

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (compacting) due to the purchase of lsD around July 21, 2016, which is the largest penalty and criminal penalty]

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

1. Confiscation;

The main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

1. Additional collection:

The proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

○ Grounds for the calculation of additional charges

(a) Parts related to ls: 23,189,600 won (21,400 won (the Seoul retail price per lsD 1, 2016, listed in May 2016) X ls 1,064 [Article 1,00 (A) received by the defendant) + ls 15 (Article 1-3) purchased by the defendant (Article 1-4) + ls 599 (Article 1-4) purchased by the defendant (Article 3-1-4) (Article 3-1, 2-2), and 3) (Article 6 (Article 2-2) of which sales price is specified among ls sold by the defendant among ls sold by the defendant sls 1,00) + ls 15 (Article 1-44 of the facts constituting a crime in the market at the time of the market at the time of the market at the time of the market at the time of the market at the time of the sale) of ls sold by the defendant

[The scope of additional collection under Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act does not require separate collection for each act of a defendant who handles the same narcotics, etc., within the scope he/she handles, on the basis of the defendant, to order the full amount of additional collection of narcotics, etc. within the scope he/she handles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do546, Sept. 8, 2000; 2010Do8764, Oct. 28, 2010). Therefore, Article 2-A. 1 of the Criminal Act is stated in the judgment.

Since the crime of ls grant without compensation was committed by lsD received as stated in ls No. 1 of the criminal facts in the judgment of the defendant, it is not collected separately. In addition, the crime of ls D sales stated in ls No. 2-A, 4) and 5 of the criminal facts in the judgment of the defendant was committed by ls that received or purchased as stated in ls No. 1 of the criminal facts in the judgment of the defendant, and the sale price cannot be known. Thus, in relation to this part of ls D sales, it is calculated by including the additional collection amount of lsD received or purchased as stated in ls No. 1 of the criminal facts in the judgment of the defendant in the judgment of the defendant

(b) Parts related to marijuana: 2,985,000 won (the Seoul retail price per 1g of marijuana as indicated in the monthly trend of narcotics, May 2016) 21.05g [=the 140g of marijuana purchased by the defendant (the criminal facts No. 1-b) - the 110.95g of marijuana seized by the defendant (the 3-Ga of criminal facts in the market on the market on the market on the market on the market on the market on the market on the market on the market on the market on the market on the market), 87g of marijuana sold by the defendant (the 2-B of the criminal facts in the market on the market on the market on the market on the market on the market on the market on the market on the market), + 880,00 won for sale in the

[The crime of smoking marijuana as stated in Paragraph (4) of the crime committed on the market is not collected separately because the defendant smokes marijuana purchased as stated in Paragraph (1) of the crime committed in the judgment of the court below.]

(c) Total amount of a surcharge: 26,174,600 won.

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant, as indicated in the facts of the crime No. 1(b), received and delivered synthetic marijuana 140g, MDMA 5g, and/or synthetic marijuana 0.43g as Kwikset service. At the time of receiving and delivering it, the Defendant, as indicated in the facts of the crime No. 1(b), recognized that the form of synthetic marijuana and marijuana was shot, and received and delivered it only as maspa. Accordingly, the Defendant did not have

Furthermore, as seen above, the Defendant recognized synthetic marijuana as marijuana and received it, and only stored it in the Defendant’s residence. Thus, there was no intention to possess synthetic marijuana in relation to Article 3(a) of the Criminal facts in the judgment.

2. Determination

이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피고인은 2016. 7. 15.경 판시 범죄사실 제1의 나항 기재와 같이 퀵서비스로 대마 140g, MDMA 5g 및 합성대마 약 0.43g을 수수한 이후 위와 같이 수수한 대마 140g은 판매를 위하여 투명 비닐팩 1개당 대마 12g~13g 상당을 담아 이를 피고인의 주거지에 보관하였고(증거목록 순번 32번 중 수사기록 제247쪽 증 제1호 압수물 사진 참조), 한편 위와 같이 수수한 합성대마 약 0.43g은 대마를 담아둔 비닐팩과는 다른 별도의 투명 비닐팩에 담아 보관하였던 점(증거목록 순번 32번 중 수사기록 제251쪽 증 제10호 압수물 사진 참조), ② 피고인이 위와 같이 2016. 7. 15.경 퀵서비스로 수수한 합성대마 약 0.43g을 같은 날 함께 수수하였던 대마로 인식하였다면 이를 대마를 담아둔 비닐팩에 같이 보관해두는 것이 자연스럽다고 할 것인데, 피고인은 약 0.43g에 불과한 소량의 합성대마를 대마를 담아둔 비닐팩과는 다른 비닐팩에 별도로 보관해 두었던 점, ③ 피고인은 2016. 7. 15.경 판시 범죄사실 제1의 나항 기재와 같이 대마와 합성대마뿐만 아니라 향정신성의약품인 MDMA도 함께 수수하였고, 피고인은 수사기관에서 조사를 받으면서 C가 일명 G에게 주문한 대마를 퀵서비스를 통해 건네받았다고 진술하면서 "G은 캐나다에 있다고 들었고, 규모가 크게 마약을 판매하고 있으며, 한국에 여러 중간 심부름꾼을 두고 유통시키는 것으로 알고 있으며, G이라는 이름으로 국내에서 오랫동안 마약을 판매해 왔다고 들었다"고 진술하였는바, 피고인은 G이 다양한 종류의 마약류를 판매하는 사람임을 알고 있었던 점, 4 피고인은 이 사건 범죄사실 기재와 같이 C와 공모하여 대마와 향정신성의약품인 LSD를 다수의 사람들에게 판매하였고, 피고인이 C와 사이에 주고받은 문자메시지 내용을 보면, LSD를 커피로, 대마를 떨내지 빵으로, MDMA를 치즈 내지 몰리로 지칭하고 있고, '치즈 주문이 들어왔네. 현재 재고가 어떻게 되지? 치즈가 얼마나 나갔더라'는 내용의 문자메시가 확인되는바(증거목록 순번 40, 41번), 피고인은 C와 공모하여 대마와 향정신성의약품인 LSD뿐만 아니라 향정신성의약품인 MDMA도 판매하는 등으로 여러 종류의 마약류를 판매해왔던 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인은 2016. 7. 15.경 판시 범죄사실 제1의 나항 기재와 같이 퀵서비스로 대마 140g, MDMA 5g 및 합성대마 약 0.43g을 수수할 당시 위와 같이 수수한 합성대마가 대마와는 구별되는 다른 종류의 향정신성의약품임을 알고 있었거나 적어도 미필적으로나마 인식하였고, 그 후 위와 같이 수수한 합성대마가 대마와는 구별되는 다른 종류의 향정신성의약품임을 인식하고 이를 대마를 담아둔 비닐팩과는 다른 비닐팩에 별도로 보관해 두는 방법으로 이를 소지하였음을 충분히 인정할 수 있다.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel is without merit.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment for two years and six months to twenty-two years; and

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria; and

(a) Basic crime - The crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) by giving and receiving ls specified in paragraph (1) of the same Article;

[Determination of Type] Narcotics Crime Group, Mass Crimes, Type 2

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations and Mitigations: None of them

【General Exemplarys : No history of criminal punishment;

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area: Imprisonment for 5 years to 8 years;

(b) 1st concurrent crime - The crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. due to the purchase of lsd as stated in paragraph (4) of Article 1 of the criminal facts.

[Determination of Type] Narcotics Crime Group, Mass Crimes, Type 2

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations and Mitigations: None of them

【General Exemplarys : No history of criminal punishment;

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area: Imprisonment for 5 years to 8 years;

(c) 2nd concurrent crime - The crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to the sale of lsd as stated in Article 2-1 (a) 5 of the crime

[Determination of Type] Narcotics Crime Group, Sales Mediation, etc., Type 3 (Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Drugs, etc.)

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations and Mitigations: None of them

【General Exemplarys : No history of criminal punishment;

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area: Imprisonment for 4 years to 7 years;

(d) Scope of recommending punishment based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: 5 years to 14 years (the lowest sentence shall be 5 years, which is the lowest sentence scope of the basic crime, and the maximum sentence shall be 8 years, which is the maximum sentence scope of the basic crime, 1/2 of the maximum sentence scope of the first concurrent crime, 4 years and 2 years and 1/3 of the maximum sentence scope of the second concurrent crime, respectively).

3. Determination of sentence;

The crime related to narcotics is highly likely to cause serious adverse effects on society as a whole, such as the possibility of undermining the health and social safety of the people, and the possibility of causing the relevant crime. Nevertheless, the Defendant shared his role with C, received or purchased ls and marijuana, which are a large quantity of psychotropic drugs, and sold them to a large number of purchasers of narcotics during several months, and distributed narcotics during the process. In addition, the Defendant possessed a large quantity of ls and marijuana for the purpose of sale and possessed them, and used them in the process of smoking marijuana. In addition, the Defendant divided the profits acquired from the sale of narcotics into C and half of the profits generated from the sale of narcotics. Furthermore, according to the Defendant’s statement and evidence submitted by the investigation agency, according to the Defendant’s criminal facts and evidence, the number of times during which the Defendant sold narcotics and distributed narcotics is charged is much more than that of the instant crime, and the Defendant appears to have been punished than that of the instant crime.

However, the Defendant recognized most of the instant crimes, and expressed that he would reflect his mistake and not repeat the instant crime. Moreover, the Defendant appears to have participated in the instant crime by first proposing the instant crime, and is the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment during which he did not have any record of criminal punishment. Such circumstances are considered as favorable to the Defendant.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, the motive and circumstances of the crime of this case, the means and result of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be comprehensively considered and the various sentencing factors specified in the records and arguments shall be determined as ordered.

Parts of innocence

1. The point of purchasing MMA and synthetic marijuana;

A. Summary of the facts charged

On July 15, 2016, the Defendant, in collusion with C, purchased MMA and synthetic marijuana, respectively, by paying Kwikset service, approximately 0.43g of MMA 5g and synthetic marijuana ordered by C to one person G, in the front of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. Determination

In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in the criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence with probative value that leads the judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do1713, May 26, 2006; 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010).

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is difficult to view that the facts charged that the Defendant, in collusion with C, purchased MMA and synthetic marijuana by paying and purchasing the amount of money in distress exceeding MMA and synthetic marijuana as stated in Article 1(b) of the Criminal Act, is proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

1) After receiving a proposal from C to sell narcotics together, the Defendant accepted it, and thereafter, C took the role of purchasing narcotics and advertising the sales of narcotics on an Internet site, and the Defendant took the role of receiving the purchase price from the purchasers of narcotics, etc., and the Defendant took over the narcotics directly or ordered by C through Kwikset Service, etc. and put them in certain places, and let the buyers find the narcotics.

2) As above, C purchased narcotics, etc. to be sold to buyers (the price was paid directly by C), and only the Defendant took the role of receiving narcotics, etc. purchased by C through Kwikset Services, etc.

3) While recognizing most of the facts charged in the instant case at an investigative agency, the Defendant consistently stated that “C received marijuana ordered to one person G through Kwikset service and received MMA and synthetic marijuana as a service. The first transaction commemorative service is the same as the service.”

4) With respect to this part of the facts charged, one person G selling narcotics, etc. to the Defendant and accomplice-related C and C, all of them did not conduct an investigation at an investigation agency in a foreign country due to the relationship in which they are located. There is no direct evidence to acknowledge that C purchased maD5g and synthetic marijuana 0.43g, as described in this part of the facts charged, as described in paragraph (b) of Article 1 of the Criminal Act, and purchased 140g of marijuana as stated in this part of the facts charged.

5) In light of the fact that the amount of MMA and synthetic marijuana claimed by the Defendant that they were supplied as so-called services is not much than 5g and 0.43g, respectively, as alleged by the Defendant, in light of the fact that the amount of MMA and synthetic marijuana claimed by the Defendant is not more than 5g and 0.43g, as alleged by the Defendant, C, who is an accomplice, ordered 140g of marijuana and paid the purchase amount corresponding thereto. However, it cannot be said that G purchased MMA and synthetic marijuana in addition to 140gs of samples or services, which are different kinds of narcotics, etc., other than 140gs of marijuana ordered by C, in addition to the marijuana 140gs of samples or services.

C. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime. However, as long as the facts charged are included in this part of the facts charged and the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to the MaMA and synthetic marijuana, which is judged within the scope of the same facts charged, the sentence of innocence

2. The possession of synthetic marijuana for the purpose of trade;

A. Summary of the facts charged

On July 25, 2016, around 08:30 on July 25, 2016, the Defendant possessed synthetic marijuana for the purpose of selling and buying by inserting approximately 0.43g of synthetic marijuana into the bend to the bend to the bend to the bend to the bend to the Defendant’s residence, the Dongjak-gu Seoul AF 205.

B. Determination

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court: (a) around July 15, 2016, the Defendant was kept in custody after receiving approximately 0.43g of synthetic marijuana through Kwikset Service; (b) the Defendant was entirely seized by the investigative agency on July 25, 2016 at the Defendant’s residence; (c) the Defendant in collusion with C sold marijuana and ls to those who wish to purchase narcotics for several months, but appears not to have sold synthetic marijuana; and (c) the Defendant, who is an accomplice, posted an advertisement to sell narcotics on the Internet website, reported the above advertisement to those who want to purchase narcotics, and sold narcotics to those who want to purchase narcotics. In light of the above advertising materials posted on the Internet website, it is difficult to view that the Defendant only sold marijuana, ls, and MDMA (hereinafter referred to as “Japanese name”) and did not possess any composite evidence to the extent that it was proven that it did not have any content beyond the content of the Defendant’s criminal facts.

C. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged should be found not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime. However, as long as the facts charged are included in this part and it is found guilty of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to the possession of synthetic marijuana as set forth in Article 3 of the same facts charged, the sentence of

The judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Domen

Judges Go Young-han

1) During the public trial process, the public prosecutor clearly stated that the defendant was prosecuted for committing the crime that "the defendant possessed marijuana and lsD for the purpose of sale" (in the case of the written indictment, each item of Articles 59 (1) 7 and 58 (1) 3 of the Narcotics Control Act on the premise that the defendant possessed marijuana and lsD for the purpose of sale is stated in the written indictment) and stated that the defendant and his defense counsel did not dispute the fact that the defendant possessed marijuana and lsD for the purpose of sale (the same is also applicable to 3-B).

2) As psychotropic drugs falling under Article 2 subparagraph 3 (b) of the Narcotics Control Act, the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. does not stipulate a penal provision separately from psychotropic drugs falling under subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the same Act in the case of psychotropic drugs falling under subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the same Act.

3) Of Chapter 1(c) of lsD 15 purchased as stated in the Defendant’s facts constituting the crime, 529 of the ls 599 purchased as stated in the facts constituting the crime, was seized, respectively.

4) In the case of three or more concurrent crimes, the final recommendation range is set on the basis of the recommendation range for three crimes with the highest maximum limit of the sentencing criteria, and therefore, the scope of each recommendation range for three crimes with the highest maximum limit of the sentencing criteria is set.

5) In the process of the public trial, the public prosecutor clearly stated that the defendant was indicted for the crime that "the defendant possessed synthetic marijuana for the purpose of sale and purchase" (in the column of applicable provisions of Acts, the public prosecutor stated in Article 58 (1) 3 of the Narcotics Control Act on the premise that the defendant possessed synthetic marijuana for the purpose of sale and purchase).