마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
The defendant's motion for adjudication on the constitutionality of the case is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment imposed by the lower court (the penalty of KRW 15 million) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant smokes marijuana three times from October 2014 to January 2016, the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime, and the Defendant committed the instant crime during the suspension period of the execution of this species of punishment, which is disadvantageous to the sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means, consequence, etc., favorable to the sentencing of the Defendant, including the Defendant’s family members and his/her assistants who want to take the Defendant’s prior seat, and the lower court’s reasonable discretion does not seem to have been excessive or excessive when comprehensively taking account of various circumstances such as the following circumstances:
3. In conclusion, since the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judgment on an application for a petition for adjudication on constitutionality
1. The purport of the application is that Article 61(1)4(a) and Article 3 subparag. 10(a) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (hereinafter “the instant penal provision”), which are the penal provisions of the instant case, infringe on the right to pursue happiness, violate the principle of equality, violates the principle of equality, and violates the principle of appropriateness among the statutory principles of the crime, and violates the State’s duty to protect national health (Article 36(3) of the Constitution), and thus, violates the principle of excessive prohibition, and thus, a judgment as to whether the said provision is unconstitutional is requested.
2. Determination.