Narcotics Attorney Assistance Case | Acquittal for Purchase of Narcotics and Suspended Sentence for Use

The client in this case had a prior record of having already received a sentence of imprisonment for the administration and purchase of methamphetamine.

After being detained in custody, the client had been released on a suspended sentence by a narrow margin, but the fact of another purchase relating to a separate administration that had taken place before that time was later revealed, and the client became caught up in criminal proceedings again.

The present offense and the prior offense arose in effect from a single course of conduct, but because they were separated in time, they were dealt with as concurrent crimes.

In the end, the client again stood trial on charges of repeated drug administration and purchase, and the possibility of an actual sentence was very high.

Accordingly, the client, having determined that assistance specialized in drug cases was needed, retained a drug specialist attorney.

The drug attorney focused on the point that, regarding the charge of purchasing drugs, there was no particular objective evidence other than the client's confession.

Accordingly, the attorney chose a strategy of actively arguing innocence on the purchase part, and, as for the use, of inducing a suspended sentence through the fairness of concurrent crimes and various grounds for mitigation.

This case was one in which criminal facts that had not been addressed in the previous judgment came to light later, and in substance it was conduct within the same criminal course as the prior case.

Accordingly, the narcotics attorney emphasized that, under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, it should be assessed together as a concurrent crime, and argued for fairness in sentencing.

The narcotics attorney emphasized that the defendant had confessed all the offenses from the police investigation stage and had subsequently written and submitted handwritten letters of remorse on several occasions.

The attorney also secured and submitted petitions from family, friends, and coworkers who continuously supported the defendant and were living together with the defendant.

This served as a factor supporting the possibility that the defendant could return to society and live without reoffending.

With respect to the purchase charge, there was no direct evidence or indirect circumstance proving the purchase apart from the defendant's confession.

Accordingly, the drug attorney made clear that the administration act was a separate crime occurring after the purchase, and that it was insufficient to serve as corroborating evidence of the purchase.

The attorney also strongly argued that the syringe used for administration was a pharmacy purchase, and that there was no evidence that it was a syringe traded in a state containing narcotics.

In a narcotics case, where it is a repeat offense, the possibility of a custodial sentence is high, so the assistance of a narcotics attorney with relevant experience is important from the early stage of the case.

Based on extensive experience defending narcotics cases, Daeryun Law Firm responds thoroughly, from the analysis of the facts to the establishment of a sentencing strategy.

If you need assistance with a narcotics case, you may use the 🔗legal consultation reservation to have your situation assessed.