마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)등
Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants and the part against Defendant A in the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the facts charged by the prosecutor’s assertion (as to Defendant X), the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts charged that Defendant X smokeed for marijuana four times with AA, but did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts charged, thereby not guilty of this part of the charges.
(2) The sentence sentenced to the first instance judgment of sentencing (a prison term of two years and six months, a stay of execution of three years, confiscation, and collection) is unfair as it is excessively uneasible compared to the extent of Defendant X’s responsibility.
B. Each punishment sentenced to the first and second depth of Defendant A’s assertion (the first instance court’s imprisonment with prison labor and the second instance court’s imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and the second instance court’s imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and additional collection) is unreasonable compared to the extent of Defendant’s responsibility.
2. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is as follows: “Defendant X (hereinafter “Defendant X”) smoked marijuana at the same time with AA from around November 2014 to around January 2015, the first instance court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that there was no evidence of reinforcement other than the confession.”
However, evidence of confession is sufficient if the facts of confession are not processed, but can be recognized as true, and it does not require all of the facts constituting an offense or all of the important parts thereof, and such evidence is sufficient not only to directly evidence, but also to indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do470 delivered on April 11, 1997). The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the court below and the court below, namely, the defendant made a statement corresponding to this part of the facts charged from the investigative agency to the court, and made a consistent statement on the date and place of the offense, and it is suspected that the defendant has credibility of such statement.