마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.
Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-finding (as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. by Selling Handphones in the judgment of the court of first instance (as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. by Selling Handphones), the Defendant did not sell Handphones to the police officers on June 10, 2013 and the same month.
B. Improper sentencing by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. This court held ex officio due to the consolidation of the judgment below concurrently tried each appeal case against the defendant's judgment.
Since the crimes of each combined case are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that sentenced two punishments against the defendant was no longer maintained.
However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.
B. (1) The summary of the facts charged and the summary of this part of the judgment of the court below on the charge of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. from Sale of Handphones (hereinafter “conphones”), were handled by the Defendant, who is a local mental medicine, as follows, even if the Defendant is not a narcotics handler.
(1) On June 10, 2013, at around 19:00, the Defendant sold a phiphone to C by receiving KRW 600,000 from C in the way near Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, and 0.8g a philopon.
(2) On June 16, 2013, around 16:30, the Defendant sold a phiphone to C by receiving KRW 600,000 from C at the E’s coffee shop located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and selling a phiphone to C.
‘ is'.
The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged based on the evidence presented.
(2) The issue of whether to trade narcotics, etc. to be judged per deliberation was the issue.