마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than four years and six months.
Attached Form.
1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the case.
A. On December 13, 2013, in the Busan District Court Decision 2013Gohap443, 736 (Merger), the Defendant and the applicant for a retrial (hereinafter “Defendant”) were sentenced to imprisonment for four years, etc. on the grounds of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny), and the Busan District Court Decision 2014Ma91 on February 20, 2014, and appealed for eight months on the grounds of unfair sentencing.
B. On June 11, 2014, the appellate court of Busan High Court (2014No7, 208 (merged) (hereinafter “the appellate court”) reversed all the judgment of the lower court, and sentenced the Defendant to four years and six months, etc. (hereinafter “the judgment on review”), which became final and conclusive on June 19, 2014.
C. After that, the Defendant filed a petition for a new trial on the judgment subject to a new trial with this Court 2015 Jaeno12, and this Court rendered a decision of commencing a new trial on May 4, 2015, and the said decision of commencing a new trial became final and conclusive as it is, on the grounds that no legitimate filing of an appeal is
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is inappropriate because the punishment of the original judgment (No. 4 years of imprisonment, No. 17 through No. 27, and No. 100,000 won additionally collected/the original judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months) is too unreasonable.
3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing.
In the past two times of the trial of the first instance court, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment adding each of the crimes listed in the No. 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, and 30 of the indictment No. 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 17, and 30 to the indictment No.
In addition, after the decision of new trial was made, the "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" in the name of the crime is regarded as "Habitual larceny", and the applicable provisions of the Act withdraw Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and apply for amendments to indictment adding Article 332
This Court has been changed to the subject of the adjudication by allowing all of them.
(b)in addition,