CONTENTS
- 1. The client who received a Gwangju attorney recommendation and came to Daeryun
- - Understanding the circumstances of the case of the client who received a Gwangju attorney recommendation
- 2. Daeryun's assistance for the client who received a Gwangju attorney recommendation
- 3. The client who received a Gwangju attorney recommendation successfully obtained dismissal of the prosecutor's appeal
1. The client who received a Gwangju attorney recommendation and came to Daeryun
The client who came to Daeryun through a Gwangju attorney referral had received a judgment of acquittal at the first instance on a charge of smoking 🔗cannabis, but the prosecutor had filed an appeal.
The client sought an attorney referral in order to maintain the first-instance judgment, and requested the assistance of a Daeryun Gwangju attorney with experience in numerous narcotics cases.
Understanding the circumstances of the case of the client who received a Gwangju attorney recommendation
The client who visited Daeryun through a Gwangju attorney referral had been accused under the Narcotics Control Act, and had received a judgment of acquittal at the first instance.
An accomplice in the case stated that the client had smoked cannabis together with him, leading to an investigation, and the client received a first-instance judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence.
However, the prosecutor filed an appeal on the ground of an improper sentence.
■ Smoking cannabis, liquid cannabis, or similar substances is punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine not exceeding 50 million won
2. Daeryun's assistance for the client who received a Gwangju attorney recommendation
The Daeryun Gwangju attorney conducted the defense at the appellate stage by emphasizing the evidence that had supported the acquittal at the first instance.
The Gwangju attorney argued that the accomplice's statement alone cannot be used as evidence of guilt
The Daeryun Gwangju attorney again emphasized that, although the client had become involved in the investigation because of the accomplice's statement, the accomplice subsequently retracted his statement, stating that ‘the client did not smoke together with him’, and that the client had also denied the conduct from the outset.
The Daeryun Gwangju attorney also argued that, where a defendant denies the contents of a written suspect interrogation protocol prepared by a prosecutor concerning another defendant or suspect who stands in an accomplice relationship with that defendant, such protocol cannot be used as evidence of guilt under Article 312, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Procedure Act. (Supreme Court, Judgment of June 1, 2023, 2023Do3741)
① A written suspect interrogation protocol prepared by a prosecutor, having been prepared in accordance with lawful procedures and methods, may be admitted as evidence only when, in the course of trial preparation or on a trial date, the defendant who was the suspect in question, or his or her defense counsel, acknowledges its contents.
Accordingly, the attorney argued that, so long as the client denied the entire contents of the protocol, the written suspect interrogation protocols and statement protocols prepared by the prosecutor concerning the accomplice could not be recognized as having evidentiary capacity.
The Gwangju attorney argued that the first-instance determination should not be reversed lightly
The Gwangju attorney argued that, in light of the difference in the methods of assessing credibility between the first instance and the appellate court, in accordance with the principle of substantial direct examination that the Criminal Procedure Act adopts as one element of the principle of trial-centered proceedings, unless there are special circumstances indicating that the first instance's determination as to the credibility of a first-instance witness's statement was clearly erroneous, or such determination is found to be markedly improper, the determination of the first instance must not be lightly overturned merely because the determination of the appellate court differs from it. (Supreme Court, Judgment of June 14, 2012, 2011Do5313)
3. The client who received a Gwangju attorney recommendation successfully obtained dismissal of the prosecutor's appeal
The client, who requested Daeryun to conduct the appellate defense through a Gwangju attorney referral, succeeded in having the prosecutor's appeal dismissed.
The client said, “With the help of the Daeryun Gwangju attorney, I was able to maintain the first-instance judgment of acquittal.”
In narcotics cases, even a first-time offender may face significant punishment, so it is most important to respond from the early stage with the assistance of an experienced attorney.
At the appellate stage, legal issues different from those at the first instance may be raised, and accurately identifying these issues and responding to them effectively requires the assistance of an attorney with specialized knowledge and experience in the relevant field.
At Daeryun Law Firm, veteran attorneys with an average of more than 20 years of legal experience provide assistance for the client's case, from consultation through investigation to trial.
If you are seeking 🔗an attorney in a situation such as the one above, please visit the 🔗Gwangju Office of Daeryun Law Firm.
This content is based on actual case studies of Daeryun Law LLC with some adaptations, and the copyright belongs to our firm.
Unauthorized reproduction, duplication, or distribution and other copyright infringements may result in legal action under applicable laws.
