마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. The main point of the appeal is the punishment of the court below against the defendant (the punishment of imprisonment of one year, two years of suspended execution, observation of protection, additional collection of 15 million won) too hot or (the defendant).
2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.
In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion, but is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence in consideration of all favorable and unfavorable circumstances with respect to the Defendant, and also considered all the circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the Prosecutor on the grounds of each appeal in the sentencing process of the lower court.
It is difficult to find any change in special sentencing conditions for the time of the trial.
Considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relation, criminal history, motive, means and consequence of a crime, various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the lower court and the oral argument at the party deliberation, such as the circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is excessively excessive or excessive to exceed the reasonable scope of its discretion.
[Judgment of the court below] The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.