마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.
Defendant
C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
, however, the defendant.
1. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant C and A: 10 months of imprisonment) against the Defendants on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The relevant legal doctrine’s sentencing on the basis of statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and reasonable scope.
However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.
In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.
In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) Defendant A1), most of the circumstances alleged by Defendant A as an element favorable to sentencing in the trial at the trial at the lower court, and there is no particular change in circumstances relating to the matters subject to sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment.
Defendant
A Some facts in cooperation with investigative agencies regarding narcotics investigation are recognized, but this seems to have been reflected in the sentencing of the court below due to the circumstances already revealed in the evidence record, its contents are merely cooperation in the arrest process of a person who has already been identified as a suspect, and the third party is also identified as a suspect of narcotics without any specific grounds on the ground that he is doubtful of a person who has reported in the process.