마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.
The subsidiary office of the Incheon District Public Prosecutor's Office, which has been seized.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below is too unreasonable as the sentence of imprisonment (one year, confiscation, additional collection KRW 903,00) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. The crime of this case, which judged that the defendant administered philophones four times even though he is not a narcotics handler, mediates the trade of philophones, and smokes marijuana once, and the crime is not good in light of the content and frequency of the crime.
In addition, the defendant, beyond the simple administration of philophones, has been subject to the distribution of third parties, and narcotics crimes cause the degradation of the whole individuals, homes, society and human beings, and need to be punished in light of the fact that it is a social pathology beyond the individual criminal act.
B. The sentence of a sentence imposed on a defendant is inevitable in consideration of the fact that the degree of addiction seems not to be light in light of the results of the defendant's maternity appraisal, etc., and it seems necessary to isolate the defendant from society for a certain period of time.
However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant has no record of the crime related to narcotics; (c) the Defendant has no record of the crime related to narcotics; and (d) the Defendant has no record of the crime other than the punishment once and once as a suspended sentence; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sex, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (d) other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, including the circumstances after the instant crime, the sentencing of the lower court is somewhat unreasonable.
Although the lower court recognized that “the Defendant, who was arrested as a fact of administering narcotics and was released,” under the unfavorable circumstances against the Defendant, “the date and time of administering a scopon is around 14:00 on June 8, 2017, immediately before the Defendant was arrested as an offender, and there was no fact that the scopon was administered during the period from the release on June 8, 2017 to the date of re-arrested by a warrant of arrest on June 15:40 on June 22, 2017, after the release on June 17, 2017.
3. Conclusion.