마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정),마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마),마약류불법거래방지에관한특례법위반
2020Do735 Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) and Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.
Act on Special Cases Concerning the Prevention of Illegal Transactions in Narcotics, etc.
A
Defendant
Attorney Kim Tae-woo (Korean)
Seoul Western District Court Decision 2019No922, 2019No1442 Decided December 19, 2019
(Consolidated) Judgment
March 12, 2020
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court.
1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal
According to the records, the Defendant appealed from each judgment of the first instance on the grounds of appeal, and asserted a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the reinforcement of confessions as well as the principle of unfair sentencing, and then withdrawn the remaining grounds for appeal other than unfair sentencing during the third trial of the lower court. In such a case, the lower court’s assertion that the lower court erred in the rules of reinforcement of confessions and in misunderstanding of the legal principles is not a legitimate ground for appeal. Furthermore, even in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not
2. Ex officio determination
The grounds for the judgment of conviction include the facts constituting an offense, the summary of evidence and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes (Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and where any one of them is omitted in whole in the grounds for the judgment while rendering a judgment of conviction, it constitutes grounds for reversal as against the law of the court below which affected the judgment under Article 383 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do3505, Jun. 25, 2009; 2010Do9151, Oct. 14, 2010).
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below erred by violating Article 383 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the court below erred by misapprehending the provisions of Article 383 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed ex officio and the judgment of conviction on the whole of the facts charged of this case was stated only in the application of the statutes, and the summary of facts
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Supreme Court Decision 200
Justices Park Sang-ok
Justices Noh Jeong-hee
Justices Kim Jae-hwan in charge