Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Exclusion of attempt punishment for synthetic cannabis use under the former Act
Supreme Court, Sept. 11, 2025, 2025Do11062 (judgment)
Case name: 마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)[합성대마 사용의 불능미수죄가 성립하는지 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where an act prohibited by Article 59(1)(v) of the former Narcotics Control Act is caught only at the stage of attempt, may Article 59(3) be applied to punish the person as an attempter, and what does the impossibility of the result mean?
Holding
No. An impossibility attempt exists where the actor has criminal intent and an act amounting to commencement of execution, but a mistake in the means or object leaves no possibility of the result or infringement from the outset, and the person is punished as an attempter only because of the act's dangerousness; there, the impossibility of the result means that, given the nature of the criminal act, the statutory elements can never be realised in any circumstances. Since Article 59(3) of the former Narcotics Control Act expressly removes the offence in Article 59(1)(v) from attempt punishment, an impossibility attempt at using a psychotropic drug within Article 2(3)(a) contrary to Article 3(v) cannot be punished as an attempt. The Court decided the matter of its own motion and reversed the whole conviction, including the part acquitted in the reasons, and remanded the case.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
불능미수란 행위자에게 범죄의사가 있고 실행의 착수라고 볼 수 있는 행위가 있더라도 실행의 수단이나 대상의 착오로 처음부터 결과발생 또는 법익침해의 가능성이 없지만 다만 그 행위의 위험성 때문에 미수범으로 처벌하는 경우를 말한다.
Unofficial English translation
An impossible attempt refers to a case where, even though the actor has the intent to commit a crime and has engaged in an act that may be regarded as the commencement of execution, there is from the outset no possibility of the occurrence of a result or of an infringement of a legal interest due to a mistake as to the means of execution or the object, but the actor is nevertheless punished as an attempt on account of the dangerousness of that act.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 유죄 부분(이유무죄 부분 포함)을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 수원고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed as to the guilty part (including the part where the reasons found the defendant not guilty), and this part of the case is remanded to the Suwon High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
여기에서 ‘결과의 발생이 불가능’하다는 것은 범죄행위의 성질상 어떠한 경우에도 구성요건의 실현이 불가능하다는 것을 의미한다.
Unofficial English translation
Here, 'the occurrence of a result is impossible' means that, by the nature of the criminal act, the realization of the constituent elements is impossible in any case.
Factors
- 행위자에게 범죄의사가 있고
- 실행의 착수라고 볼 수 있는 행위가 있더라도
- 실행의 수단이나 대상의 착오로 처음부터 결과발생 또는 법익침해의 가능성이 없지만
- 다만 그 행위의 위험성 때문에 미수범으로 처벌하는 경우를 말한다.
- 범죄행위의 성질상 어떠한 경우에도 구성요건의 실현이 불가능하다는 것을 의미한다.
Unofficial English translation
• the actor has the intent to commit a crime, and
• even though there is an act that may be regarded as the commencement of execution,
• there is from the outset no possibility of the occurrence of a result or of an infringement of a legal interest due to a mistake as to the means of execution or the object, but
• it nevertheless refers to a case where the actor is punished as an attempt on account of the dangerousness of that act.
• It means that, by the nature of the criminal act, the realization of the constituent elements is impossible in any case.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2019. 5. 16. 선고 2019도97 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2019Do97 decided May 16, 2019
Decisions referred to
대법원 1998. 10. 23. 선고 98도2313 판결, 대법원 2019. 5. 16. 선고 2019도97 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a part acquitted in the reasons concerns an act separate from the convicted conduct, does it still form one offence with the convicted part and fall with it on reversal?
The remand judgment of the Suwon High Court, which must hear the case again including the part acquitted in the reasons, will show how the exclusion of attempt punishment works in practice. Any change to the attempt-punishment provisions of the amended Narcotics Control Act, or a later decision reading Article 59(3) or the definition of impossibility differently, requires this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where a part acquitted in the reasons concerns an act separate from the convicted conduct, does it still form one offence with the convicted part and fall with it on reversal?” vs Independent “Under what concrete circumstances would an impossible attempt involving these substances possess the dangerousness required by Article 27 of the Criminal Act?”
The primary asks whether an acquittal in the reasons must fall with the conviction, while the independent asks what establishes dangerousness in an impossible attempt.
불능미수란 행위자에게 범죄의사가 있고 실행의 착수라고 볼 수 있는 행위가 있더라도 실행의 수단이나 대상의 착오로 처음부터 결과발생 또는 법익침해의 가능성이 없지만 다만 그 행위의 위험성 때문에 미수범으로 처벌하는 경우를 말한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Suwon High Court, in its judgment of 19 June 2025 (2025No311), kept the first-instance judgment unchanged. It held that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant actually used synthetic cannabis, so that part was acquitted in the reasons, but that the defendant had commenced execution with the intent to use synthetic cannabis and the act was dangerous, so the impossibility attempt at synthetic cannabis use within the same charge was convicted.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that this approach misread the law on the establishment of the offence, since Article 59(1)(v) of the former Narcotics Control Act is excluded from the attempt-punishment rule in Article 59(3) and thus an impossibility attempt at its use cannot be punished, and that the error affected the judgment. Because the impossibility attempt stood in a concurrence relationship under the opening clause of Article 37 of the Criminal Code with the remaining convictions, and the part acquitted in the reasons formed one offence with the convicted part, the entire convicted portion, reason-based acquittal included, had to be reversed. The Court set aside review of the appellant's grounds and remanded the whole convicted portion for retrial, by the concurrence of the Justices concerned.
Distinguishing conditions
- A charge under a provision for which the special penal statute or the specific offence itself provides for attempt punishment, since the exclusion here rests on Article 59(3) expressly removing Article 59(1)(v) from its reach.
- A charge under the Narcotics Control Act as amended by Act No. 20878 of 1 April 2025, since the Court decided under the former Act and did not say how the amended Act treats attempt.
- A case in which the substance and conduct fall within a completed offence, since an impossibility attempt requires that the result could not be realised in any circumstances from the outset.
Record verification notes
First confirm that the count is laid as use of a psychotropic drug within Article 2(3)(a) contrary to Article 3(v) of the former Narcotics Control Act, because that is the offence the Court treated as removed from attempt punishment. Then check which version of the Act applies, whether the substance is a synthetic cannabinoid under Article 2(3)(a), and whether what remains is a completed use rather than an impossibility attempt, since the Court decided on its own motion without reviewing the appellant's grounds.
From the official text
Points at issue
‘불능미수’의 의미 및 불능미수의 요건 중 ‘결과의 발생이 불가능’하다는 것의 의미 / 구 마약류 관리에 관한 법률 제59조 제1항 제5호에서 금지하는 행위가 미수에 그친 경우, 같은 법 제59조 제3항을 적용하여 미수범으로 처벌할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
The meaning of an 'impossible attempt' and the meaning of 'the occurrence of a result is impossible' among the requirements for an impossible attempt / Whether, where an act prohibited by subparagraph 5 of paragraph (1) of Article 59 of the former Narcotics Control Act stops at an attempt, a person may be punished for an attempt by applying paragraph (3) of Article 59 of the same Act (negative)
Summary of the holding
형법 제8조는 "본법 총칙은 타법령에 정한 죄에 적용한다. 단 그 법령에 특별한 규정이 있는 때에는 예외로 한다."라고 규정하고 있고, 형법 제29조는 "미수범을 처벌할 죄는 각칙의 해당 죄에서 정한다."라고 규정한다. 따라서 형법 각칙의 해당 죄 또는 특별형벌법규에서 미수범 처벌규정을 둔 경우 미수범으로 처벌할 수 있다. 형법 제27조(불능범)는 "실행의 수단 또는 대상의 착오로 인하여 결과의 발생이 불가능하더라도 위험성이 있는 때에는 처벌한다. 단 형을 감경 또는 면제할 수 있다."라고 규정하고 있다. 불능미수란 행위자에게 범죄의사가 있고 실행의 착수라고 볼 수 있는 행위가 있더라도 실행의 수단이나 대상의 착오로 처음부터 결과발생 또는 법익침해의 가능성이 없지만 다만 그 행위의 위험성 때문에 미수범으로 처벌하는 경우를 말한다. 여기에서 ‘결과의 발생이 불가능’하다는 것은 범죄행위의 성질상 어떠한 경우에도 구성요건의 실현이 불가능하다는 것을 의미한다. 한편 구 마약류 관리에 관한 법률(2025. 4. 1. 법률 제20878호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 마약류관리법’이라고 한다) 제59조 제1항은 "다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 자는 1년 이상의 유기징역에 처한다."라고 규정하고, 같은 항 제5호는 "제3조 제5호를 위반하여 제2조 제3호 (가)목에 해당하는 향정신성의약품 또는 그 물질을 함유하는 향정신성의약품을 소지·소유·사용·관리한 자"를 구 마약류관리법 제59조 제1항의 처벌대상에 포함시키고 있으나, 같은 조 제3항은 "제1항(제5호 및 제13호는 제외한다) 및 제2항에 규정된 죄의 미수범은 처벌한다."라고 규정하여 구 마약류관리법 제59조 제1항 제5호를 미수범 처벌대상에서 제외하고 있다. 이와 같은 형법 총칙 및 구 마약류관리법의 관련 규정 내용과 체계 등에 비추어 볼 때, 구 마약류관리법 제59조 제1항 제5호에서 금지하는 행위가 미수에 그친 경우 구 마약류관리법 제59조 제3항을 적용하여 미수범으로 처벌할 수 없다.
Order
원심판결 중 유죄 부분(이유무죄 부분 포함)을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 수원고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed as to the guilty part (including the part where the reasons found the defendant not guilty), and this part of the case is remanded to the Suwon High Court.
Provisions referred to
형법 제8조, 제27조, 제29조, 구 마약류 관리에 관한 법률(2025. 4. 1. 법률 제20878호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제3호 (가)목, 제3조 제5호, 제59조 제1항 제5호, 제3항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger