마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
30,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) There is no fact that the Defendant, as indicated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, delivered to D a injection machine containing philopon, or administered philopon between March 1, 2016 and March 4, 2016.
2) Although the sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the sentence of the lower judgment in June) contains “one year and six months,” the sentence of the lower judgment is an oral declaration of the contents of the judgment in the courtroom, and is an act that declares the contents of the judgment in the courtroom, the sentence must read the text and explain the gist of the reasons. As such, the judgment is externally constituted and publicly announced and takes effect by the pronouncement in the courtroom, and the part related to the substance of the judgment (pactly ordered order) among the contents that was pronounced in the courtroom was not pronounced as serious.
Even if the decision of the court below only takes effect as declared, according to the recording of the date of the decision of the court below, the presiding judge of the court below acknowledged the oral fact that "the defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months" while reading the order to the defendant in court.
It is too unreasonable to do so.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all of the facts constituting the crime indicated in the lower judgment, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances.
A) As to the sale of philophones, D has consistently made a specific statement from the prosecution to the court of the court below to the effect that it corresponds to this part of the facts charged. In light of the fact that the Defendant and D were indicted for purchasing phiphones from the Defendant at the time and location of the Defendant and D, the date and time of D’s purchase of phiphones from the Defendant at the same time and place, and was convicted, the above statement was credibility and credibility, and if the rest of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was neglectd, this part of
(B) taken March 7, 2016 on the administration of philophones.