Overview of the case (facts)
The client was charged with purchasing and administering methamphetamine and some distribution charges. At trial, he was convicted of the purchase and distribution counts, but acquitted of the distribution count due to lack of corroborating evidence other than his confession.
As the prosecution filed an appeal against the acquittal, the client was at risk of an increased sentence and needed specialized legal assistance.
Case Issues (Case Features)
The case required a sophisticated legal review centered on the lack of corroboration of the confession, as the prosecution's appeal resulted in a retrial of the methamphetamine giveaway portion of the first-degree acquittal, with the risk of sentence enhancement.
Assistance from the warm river
In response to the prosecution's appeal, Ong Kang's defense team prepared an organized and professional appeal brief.
In particular, the law on the requirement of corroboration of confessions was precisely analyzed, highlighting the key problems with the prosecution's argument. He argued for the lack of a temporal and spatial connection between the fact of taking meth and the fact of purchase, and demonstrated through analysis of relevant case law that seized meth cannot serve as corroborating evidence of past drug use.
They also logically argued that data usage simply shows the location of the defendant and does not prove actual gratuitous behavior.
The court also pointed out the difficulty in accurately weighing meth due to the fact that it is traded in microscopic amounts, and cited the fact that the defendant divided it by eye without a scale as evidence of the inaccuracy of the residue calculation.
In addition, the client demonstrated that he had completed a drug prevention education course at the Korea Anti-Drug Movement and made voluntary efforts to educate himself, such as reading and watching documentaries on the effects of drugs on the brain, and submitted specific materials that demonstrated his sincere remorse and commitment to prevent recidivism.
Results
The prosecution's appeal was denied, upholding the methamphetamine giveaway portion of the first trial acquittal. The probationary sentence was affirmed, allowing the client to avoid jail time and rehabilitate, and the risk of sentence aggravation was completely eliminated, achieving the best possible outcome for the client.
Case outcome materials
