South Korea’s Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Shin Suk-hee, on 27 October 2026 reversed the lower court’s ruling against a defendant identified as A, who was indicted on charges including violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court.[1][2][3] A, who ran a record production and distribution company, a content firm, and nightlife establishments, was brought to trial on charges that included buying large quantities of ecstasy and marijuana in 2023 and selling or smoking some of them.[1] Prosecutors also charged that around 9 p.m. in late April 2024, A smoked 1 gram of marijuana together with four accomplices at an office in Seoul.[1] The trial court found A guilty of the marijuana smoking charge, citing, among other things, that the accomplices indicted with A admitted the offense in court, and including other drug-related charges, the court sentenced A to three years and six months in prison and ordered 22.8 million won in forfeiture.[1][3] On appeal, A argued that the smoking actually occurred in late April 2023 and that the indictment mistakenly listed April 2024, and said the confession at the first trial referred to the 2023 incident and that there was no marijuana smoking in April 2024.[1] The appellate court upheld the guilty verdict, saying there was no reason to suspect the confession was coerced and noting the accomplices’ statements, and reduced the forfeiture to 12.68 million won to avoid double-counting the value of 144 ecstasy pills already forfeited in another case.[1] The Supreme Court found that the police and prosecution interrogation records of A and the accomplices that the first-instance court relied on as evidence all concerned marijuana smoking in late April 2023, and that the interviews also took place before late April 2024, and that the toxicology reports on urine and hair were likewise all prepared before the alleged date of the offense in the indictment.[1] The Supreme Court also found it hard to rule out the possibility that the accomplices’ in-court confessions referred to the April 2023 smoking incident, and therefore held that their testimony could not be deemed sufficient to corroborate A’s confession, and that the remaining evidence alone did not adequately prove the alleged smoking in April 2024.[1] The Criminal Procedure Act bars a conviction if the defendant’s confession is the only incriminating evidence, and the Supreme Court said the lower court misunderstood the legal principles on corroborating a confession and on the standard of proof required in criminal trials.[1] The Supreme Court found no error in the lower court’s determination that A was guilty on other charges of selling marijuana with accomplices, but because a single sentence had been imposed for the disputed smoking charge and the remaining guilty counts, it overturned the entire judgment against A, and as a result the forfeiture adjusted on appeal will also be reconsidered, and this ruling does not acquit A of all charges.[1]