Psychotropic use2026.04.02
Voluntary accompaniment and urine sampling without a warrant: evidence excluded, acquitted
It began with a street stop. Counsel contested the accompaniment and the warrantless urine sampling; the test result was excluded and the court acquitted.
- Charge
- Psychotropic use
- Result
- Acquitted
- Date
- 2026.04.02
- Authority
- Seoul OO District Court
- Case no.
- 2025고단OOOO
- Stage
- Trial
- Attorney
- Seok Jong-Wook
쟁점
마약 사건의 첫 번째 쟁점은 체포·압수수색 절차의 적법성입니다. 임의동행이 사실상 강제였는지, 채뇨가 영장 없이 적법하게 이루어졌는지가 다투어졌습니다.
변호인의 대응
경찰 바디캠·CCTV·동행 시각을 대조해 임의성 결여를 소명하고, 위법수집증거 배제 법칙(형사소송법 제308조의2)에 따라 감정 결과의 증거능력을 다퉜습니다.
결과
법원은 소변 감정 결과의 증거능력을 배제하고 무죄를 선고했습니다.
In a similar situation?
Wherever the case stands, it starts with an accurate assessment of where you are now.
Other records of the same kind
Not referred (no suspicion)A name left on a dealer’s phone: showing nothing was ever received ended in no referral
Booked for receiving cannabis because his name was on a dealer’s phone. The context of the chats and the absence of any payment closed the case without referral.
Suspended on treatment conditionsPositive urine test, treatment before the first interview: first-offense meth case, prosecution suspended on treatment conditions
A single use at an acquaintance’s urging. Treatment enrollment and a family care plan, filed before the interview, led to a suspension of prosecution on treatment conditions.
Suspended on education conditionsKetamine tried for the first time at a club: a recovery-education plan came first, and prosecution was suspended on conditions
A first offense after trying ketamine at a club. A plan for recovery education and counseling, filed before the interview, led to a conditional suspension of prosecution.