LAW LEAVES LITTLE ROOM FOR ENTRAPMENT ARGUMENT

Dear Professor Hayes: I was the victim of entrapment. I was viewing
a message board about concerts in Seoul. One posting on the board
said that they were interested in knowing where to purchase
marijuana. I heard of a person who sold marijuana near Hongik
University so I left my e-mail and said we can go together and
purchase the marijuana together. When we arranged a meeting it was
the police. I am facing time in jail, embarrassment, and a lot of
costs. I looked up the word in an English dictionary and I think
this is entrapment. Can you use this type of argument in Korea?

Worried-Korean College Student.

Dear Worried: First, as you know, the drugs laws in Korea are very
strict, and all Korean and foreigners should refrain from
associating with people who use drugs, going to establishments were
drugs are sold or used, and using any form of illegal drugs,
including marijuana. Many first time marijuana users have spent time in jail.

Over the years in Korea, I have seen too many naive young people
caught with drugs in their possession or within their system. If you
are intent on using drugs, leave Korea.

You will eventually be caught and the punishment will be, at a
minimum, a large legal bill and/or large fine. If you are a
foreigner don't expect to work in Korea in the near future.

Secondly, Worried, yes in Korea you can argue the defense of
entrapment. The key to the defense is the successful assertion by
the defendant that he or she was induced to commit the crime and
that he or she was not predisposed to committing the crime.

The Korean Supreme Court clarified this rule in a case disposed of
in the Fall of 2005. The Court acknowledged that entrapment likely
occurred in a case that concerned a paid informant and the smuggling
of drugs from China to Korea. The informant, according to the
defendants, asserted that the importation of the drugs was to assist
the government efforts to fight drug trafficking. The defendants
further contended that consistent persuasion of the informant led to
them accepting and assisting in trafficking drugs. The prosecution
essentially agreed with most of the defendants asserted facts, but
contended that the defendants were predisposed to committing the
crime and thus had the requisite intent.

The Supreme Court, in short, acknowledged that the defendants may
have been induced and the prosecutor's argument of predisposition to
the commit the crime was not proven.

So yes, worried, it is a possible defense in Korea, but in your case
you will fight an up hill battle. The inducement is minimal, at
best, and the prosecutors will have a decent argument that your were
predisposed since they didn't engage in any positive persuasion and
that your curiosity and knowledge of where to purchase drugs proves
your disposition. Worried, in most cases, the best solution to
similar cases is to hire a very good lawyer, cooperate with the
police and prosecutor and pray to the almighty God.