마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment and additional collection) on the defendant is too unlimited and unfair.
2. Circumstances favorable to the reasoning of appeal: The defendant shows the attitude of recognizing and opposing each of the crimes in this case.
On August 14, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment due to a violation of the Narcotics Control Act, etc. on the part of August 14, 2014, and did not know about the execution of the sentence, and committed each of the instant crimes without being aware of the fact during the repeated crime period.
The defendant has been punished six times for crimes involving narcotics (five times for punishment, five times for suspension of execution, and one time for suspension of execution).
The age and character environment of the defendant, including the above favorable circumstances, unfavorable circumstances, the motive and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc. of this case, and all the sentencing conditions and the scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (a more than one year of imprisonment);
(a) Basic crimes [the determination of types] / [the scope of recommending crimes] / [the category] 3 types of narcotics crimes (b) / the specific possession, etc. of medication and simple possession, etc. (c) / [the specially aggravated persons] / the previous crimes (not less than three years of suspension of execution within three years) / the aggravated area (the scope of punishment by imprisonment for one year or three years);
(b) No sentencing criteria are set for concurrent crimes (violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation);
C. In light of the total of at least one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the final sentence scope according to the standards for handling multiple crimes (at least one year of concurrent crimes, since the sentencing guidelines are not set for concurrent crimes, compliance with the lower limit of the scope of the recommended sentence), it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act ( even if the prosecutor does not impose a sentence of confiscation, confiscation or collection is a kind of punishment and ex officio, so it is not possible for the prosecutor to declare his/her opinion seeking confiscation (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do2211, Feb. 14, 1989).