An appellant said in theirs grounds of appeal that the appealed ruling by which they were convicted of possessing drugs for trading purposes had erred in the application of law. He said that the court had failed to prove the existence of the trading intention in his case.

The court of cassation said that this argument was invalid. The court said that the court considered all aspects of the incident and concluded that the elements of the crime existed in the case. The court said that the court had established its ruling on the grounds that the confiscated drugs were in large quantities and were prepared and divided for trading. The court said that the court also established its ruling on the grounds of the testimony of the second convicted person who confessed that the appellant gave him the drugs in order to sell . The court said that the court therefore had established its ruling on the grounds of solid evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal.