Gwangju Attorney Recommendation | A client who received a Gwangju attorney recommendation successfully maintained an acquittal on cannabis smoking on appeal as well

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

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)

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, 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)