首先聲明,可以看到這篇文章的朋友們,是有另設組群的.
所以請所有擁有好友權限的朋友們,在看過今天這篇私密消息之後,請把可愛性感的嘴巴,加上一條拉鍊,密密拉緊喔!
絕對不要在任何公開論壇/部落格討論,更不可以私下告訴其他人.
甚至在我家,言談間也不要透露文章內容或讓其他朋友知道,你其實屬於擁有觀賞權限的好友群之一.
簡單說,在這裡看了這裡的消息/留言/討論.一離開這篇帖,請當作自己什麼也不知道!不要讓我為難!OK?
不然我會把權限人數進一步縮小.
不要害我為難喔!被我發現不聽話的好友們,我就會取消權限甚至列入黑名單.我是絕對認真的.
=====================================================================
這篇文章內容屬於完整版.和公開版相比,我把關於最高刑罰部分省略於公開發文的文章了.
記住:
此份資料,屬於匿名者以專業律師的角度,憑藉媒體至今所發佈的報導所做出的猜測.僅提供參考.不能完全100%準確的預測K國審訊過程,處理手法,審訊結果.特此聲明.
好友們,別看完文章就心情沮喪,覺得一切沒希望.相反,了解得越多,心應該會更定!
Had a major computer disaster so it took me a while to get back to you. Here it goes. As before, no name, no email address. and no forwarding of my email. If after reading my overly long response below, you want to share on your page, feel free to cut and paste only selected questions and answers. However, whatever you share, please make sure to include my full disclaimers in the beginning and my full response to a particular question.
因為電腦面對了重大的災難，讓我花了一段時間給您回覆。到這裡也不言而喻了吧。與以前一樣，沒有名字，沒有電子郵件地址。沒有轉發我的電子郵件。如果在閱讀我過長的答复，您想分享於您的部落格上，請隨時剪切和粘貼只有選定的問題和答案。然而，無論什麼,您與他人分享時，請務必把我從一開始的免責聲明和完全針對特定問題的解答,完整表達出來。
Before attempting a response to your questions, I want to emphasize:
在試圖對您的問題發表解答時，我想強調：
a. I have no experience with the Country K legal system. None whatsoever.
A.我對k國的法律制度, 都沒有什麼經驗
b. Country K justice system that is vastly different from the Anglo-American justice system. Although Country K has been adopting more Anglo-American criminal law principles, fundamental differences remain. So my "professional instinct" is rather useless.
B.K國的司法系統與英美司法系統是大不相同的。雖然K國一直採取更英美刑法的原則，根本的分歧仍然存在。因此，我的“職業本能”是相當無用的。
c. The real-world enforcement and application of written laws are complicated and dynamic. Many human factors, such as tradition, culture, politics, people’s way of thinking, common practice, and the individual perspective and experience of the judge and the prosecutor, can influence the process and the outcome.
C.真實世界裡書面法律的實施和應用是很複雜和可以靈活運用的。
許多人為因素，如傳統，文化，政治，人的思維方式，常見的做法，與個人的觀點和法官和檢察官的經驗，都有可以對進程和結果有所影響。
d. Accurate details really matter. For example, we don’t know what the exact allegations of the indictment are, what was confessed to, whether the confession was taped or videotaped, or what corroborating evidence the prosecution has gathered. All we have are the very brief news accounts.
D.準確的細節是真正的問題。
例如，我們不知道確切的起訴書所指控的真正詳情，所承認的是什麼，自供狀是以錄音或錄像的方式程呈供，或檢察機關已蒐集什麼確鑿證據。所有我們所能夠憑證的只是非常簡要的綜合報導。
In other words, keep in mind that what I provide is mostly guesswork!
換言之，記住，我主要是提供猜測！
1) 以你的專業知識來評估,這件案件的成功率高不高?
Depend on how you define "success."
取決於你如何定義“成功” 。
a. If "success" means having the indictment withdrawn or winning a not-guilty verdict, the chance does not look good based on past statistics. (Remember the very high conviction rate, most involving confession? Also, the prosecutor has traditionally carried tremendous weight in Country K’s criminal judicial system.)
a. 如果“成功”是指公訴撤回或贏得不有罪判決的機會,根據過去的統計數據,這樣的機會並不被看好。 （記住,大多數涉及招供？的案件,定罪率非常高;
此外，在K國的刑事司法系統,檢察官在傳統上有著舉足輕重的地位。 ）
For that kind of success, there would probably need to be a successful challenge that the prosecutor’s evidence was insufficient or inadmissible (such as when the confession was involuntary, the confession was incorrectly stated by police, the corroborating evidence was inadmissible). In that case, appeal will likely follow and the process would drag on for a while.
對於這樣的成功，有可能被檢察官視為因證據不足或不予受理（如:當供詞是屬於自願招供的，是警方提供的不正確供詞聲明，確證是不能接受的）的一個成功的挑戰。在這種情況下，可能會有後續上訴而進程也會拖上一段時間。
b. If "success" means a suspended sentence and no jail term, that’s certainly a possibility.
b. 如果“成功”是指緩刑，並沒有刑期，這當然是一個可能性。
Here are some possible considerations in favor of a lighter punishment: First-time offender with no prior criminal record of any sort; isolated incidents; zero likelihood of illegal use again, good character (a productive citizen, a history of charitable work, a dutiful child who has supported a large family and friends in need for years, etc.); extreme remorse; readiness to do whatever it takes (community work, rehabilitation, anti-drug outreach, etc.) to redeem himself; consequences already suffered; emerging attitude to treat drug use as a health issue. Also, the police and the prosecutor’s office are under increasing criticism for human rights violations in their investigation of other entertainers and for turning up so few suspects after all the early talks. To avoid more criticism, they may want to wrap up this part of the investigation quickly and focus on the more serious crimes of drug trafficking against the other two.
以下是一些可能的因素，取而代之的是較輕的處罰：
---第一次犯罪,在任何類別,事先也都沒有任何的犯罪記錄;
---單獨的事件;零非法再次使用的可能性，良好的品格（有生產力公民，過去參與慈善工作的經驗，一位已經多年以來,負擔一個大型家族,朋友的義務的盡職孩子，等） ;
---極端悔恨;願意盡一切力量（社會工作，康復，禁毒宣傳等），以贖回自己;已經遭受到後果;
---新興態度對待使用毒品專注於健康問題。
---另外，警察和檢察官辦公室正在遭受越來越多的批評,在進行調查時期侵犯人權的行為,還有在一開始過早談及涉嫌總人數,之後卻只把比實際數量少的涉及者鎖定在案。
為了避免更多的批評，他們可能要結束這部分的調查，並迅速集中於更嚴重的販毒罪行以針對其他兩個。
Here are some possible considerations in favor of prison time: "Party drugs" like E and K are relatively cheap and their use has been on the rise in Country K in recent years, especially among urban youth. There is an urgent need to stop this trend. Putting a well-known person in jail for two incidents of usage will undoubtedly send a very strong message of zero tolerance. A stiff sentence may also soften the government’s embarrassment that its early prediction of over a dozen potential suspects, including A-list entertainers, has so far not materialized.
以下是一些可能的因素有利於監獄的時間：
---K國在最近幾年，尤其是城市青年,“派對的藥物”像E和K,價格是相對的便宜，其使用者一直在增加。目前迫切需要制止這種趨勢。
把一個眾所周知的人在兩起事件中送入監獄,無疑將發出一個非常強烈的信息的零容忍。
嚴格的句子也可能軟化政府在它早期預測十幾個潛在的嫌疑犯，其中包括列表的A級藝人，至今都沒有兌現的尷尬。
" So, it’s anyone’s guess which way the prosecutor
and the judge may lean. One clue TO HOW THE JUDGE MAY RULE IS
TO LOOK AT how OTHER first-time users of
similar drugs have been sentenced in recent years. I have not been able to
find any data." I have not been able to find any data.
所以，在猜測檢察官和法官可能做出哪種行式上的宰制,這將可以從最近幾年,關於類似其他第一次毒品使用者,如何被法官裁定罪行的實例中得到線索。我還沒有能夠找到任何數據。
2)以你的推測,JH的律師會以怎樣的證據來證明他是無心之失?也有悔改的心?
See answer above.
見上述回答。
3 ）最嚴重的判決？
I took a quick look at the English version of Country K’s Narcotics Control Act. Let’s assume the indictment is for the use of E and K, just as the newspapers said. Based on the version I read, which may or may not be the most current version, illegal use of psychotropic drugs is punishable by imprisonment of up to 10 years or a fine of up to 100 million won under Article 60 of the Act.
我在英文版的K國麻醉品管制法迅速簡略的看了一看。假設起訴書使用E和K(搖頭丸與大麻)，就像報紙上說。根據我閱讀的版本，這可能是也可能不是最新的版本;
根據第60條的法案:非法使用精神藥物是可處以監禁長達10年或罰款高達100億韓元。
Before you scream, keep this in mind: Unlike the much more serious drug crimes (such as manufacturing or trafficking), this provision DOES NOT require a minimum level of punishment. The language of this provision is general and covers all use violations (habitual or not, for instance) and some non-use related violations. In other words, the judge has much discretion when determining the appropriate sentence for a specific case. I am sure JH’s case won’t trigger any maximum penalty. Not even close.
在您尖叫以前，記住這一點：
---不同於更嚴重的毒品犯罪（如製造或販運），這項規定並不要求最低限度的處罰。
---這項規定是囊括了普遍和覆蓋所有使用侵犯（例如:慣性使用或否）和一些非使用相關的行為。
換言之，在一件特別的案例,法官有很大的酌情,以確定適當的刑罰。
我肯定JH的案件將不會觸發任何最高刑罰。甚至連相近的最高刑罰也不可能。
4)JH需要和律師一起出庭受審嗎?還是只有第一次出庭必須出現?或是每次開庭一定要出現在法庭?
Country K's criminal procedure law requires the defendant to be present. Whether presence is required all the time throughout the trial, I don’t know. Also, while the trial is generally open to the public, the judge has the authority and obligation to maintain courtroom order, and can impose restrictions to avoid disruption by spectators.
K國刑事訴訟法要求被告出席。是否需要所有的審訊過程都出席，我不知道。
另外，雖然一般的審訊是公開給群眾的，法官還是有權力和義務，維護法庭秩序，可以加強限制，以避免觀眾造成混亂局面。
5 ）有沒有可能，可以由律師代表，他不必出現？
See above. As a public figure, he is being tried by the court and by the society at the same time. If he truly confesses, it's probably better that he openly shows his willingness to face past mistakes squarely, take responsibility and repent.
見上文。作為公眾人物，他正由法院和社會在同一時間試煉著。如果他確實承認，可能更好，表示他公開表明,他願意面對和正視過去的錯誤，承擔責任並進行懺悔。
6 ）判緩刑的話，不需要被拷上手拷吧？
I don’t see the reason for it but I have no idea what the standard practice in Country K may be.
我不認為有這個必要，但我對K國標準的做法毫無概念。
7 ）以你的經驗，家需要在法庭上自辯嗎？或全由律師代表發言？
Country K has adopted the Anglo-American concept that the criminal defendant the right to remain silent. In the U.S., criminal defendants often choose to exercise this right and don’t testify at all. However, the traditional practice in Country K was for the judge to directly question the defendant about what happened. The assumption was that the defendant would know best what actually happened. With that tradition in mind, it is not clear how frequent a Country K defendant actually chooses to remain silent.
K國通過了英美概念，刑事被告有權保持沉默。在美國，刑事被告往往選擇行使這一權利，選擇沉默不作證的。
然而，K國法官的傳統做法是，直接向被告提問,有關到底發生了什麼事。假定在於,假設被告是最了解實際發生的情況。在保守的思想上，目前還不清楚K國被告,實際上選擇保持沉默的慣例有多少。
Also, there is no separate sentencing hearing. (In the U.S., trial and sentencing are two separate proceedings with different rules.) So, it’s possible that the defendant may want to speak to the court (and indirectly to the public) about his deep remorse and reflection, his promise not to , etc. etc. before the judge decides on the punishment.
此外，也沒有單獨的判刑聆訊。 （在美國，審訊和判決是兩個單獨的程序與不同的規則。 ）所以，這有可能是被告可能要向法院發言（或間接地向公眾發言）關於他深刻的反省和思考，他承諾任何時候都不違反法律，等等..在法官決定判決懲罰之前。
8 ）以你的經驗，通常會需要多長的審訊時間？一個月？一星期？
It depends. If the prosecutor feels the need to call many witnesses, or if the defense wants to contest the allegations and challenge the evidence, then it might take longer. But if the defendant basically accepts the charges, even though the prosecutor still has to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the proceeding could move quite rapidly. Unless the evidence is really problematic, there is probably little incentive for the judge or the parties to prolong the trial proceeding. That would only invite unwanted scrutiny, generate rampant public speculation, and encourage media frenzy. The prosecution would want to announce a quick victory, the defense would want to limit public humiliation, the judge would want to devote time to other cases.
這沒有確切的答案。如果檢察官認為有必要呼籲許多證人，或者被告希望對其指控進行爭辯和挑戰證據，那麼它可能需要更長的時間。
但是，如果被告基本上接受了指控，儘管檢察官還是必須在已無合理疑問的情況下證明罪行，該訴訟的進展可能會相當快。
除非證據確實有問題，有可能是幾乎不鼓勵法官或各方延長審判程序。
這將只會招致不必要的審查，產生猖獗的大眾推測,助長媒體瘋狂。檢察機關會想要宣布一個快速的勝利，被告會想要壓迫來自公共侮辱，法官也要花時間審理其他案件。
Several other things: 
其他幾個因素：
a.Country K introduced a pilot jury trial program last year for limited cases. I’m pretty sure there would be no jury trial here.
a.K國在去年幾件限定的案件中,介紹了試驗性質的陪審團審判程序。
我蠻肯定在這件案件中,將不會有陪審團審判。
b. I don’t know when the trial date may be set or when it need to be set, whether the three cases would be tried by the same judge or different judges, or whether trials for the three cases would take place concurrently.
b.我不知道審判日期什麼時候可能規定或者何時需要規定，是否3起案件(注:HY,尹女和JH)的審判法官是由一位相同的法官主持審訊或不同的法官各自審訊，還是三件案件將同時進行審訊。
c. I should correct myself. The largest % of convicted illegal drug users in the past appears to be the unemployed. Stress is detrimental to your health!
c.我需要糾正自己。最大定罪率於非法毒品使用者群中,在過去似乎都是失業者佔據最大的巴仙率。壓力不利於你的健康！
That’s enough guesswork for the day! Take care.
猜測的一天至今已經足夠！保重。
Please Do not save or posted it to any public blog, website, forums.
Thank you for your cooperation
*禁止轉載* 謝謝合作
留言列表
