beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.04.19 2018노27

마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor, on January 24, 2017, indicted the Defendant on the Defendant’s Mept cacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacaca, which is the time adjacent to each of the instant crimes. As to the instant facts charged, the Defendant was indicted on November 28, 2017, on

As a result, the Defendant lost the interest to be tried at the same time with the Metetop medication case, which was tried prior to the instant case, and thus, the prosecutor’s prosecution against each of the instant crimes constitutes abuse of the power to prosecute.

B. Sentencing

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal doctrine (abusing the power of prosecution) 1) A prosecutor of the relevant legal doctrine who arbitrarily exercised the power of prosecution to give substantial disadvantages to the defendant, thereby remarkably deviating from the discretionary power of prosecution.

The effect of the prosecution can be denied in the case of abuse of the right to institute a public prosecution. Here, the intention of a person's right to institute a public prosecution is not sufficient simply by negligence in the course of performing his duties, and at least dolusence is required (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3026, Sept. 7, 2001, etc.). The prosecutor tried to divide the prosecution into several times according to the progress of the investigation without filing multiple criminal acts of the defendant together (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3026, Sept. 7,

the prosecutor's filing of the prosecution has been significantly relieved of discretionary power.

Nor can it be viewed (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5313, Dec. 27, 2007, etc.). 2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence and the record of trial duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it is difficult to view the prosecutor’s indictment of this case was arbitrary or considerable deviation from discretionary power.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

(1) The defendant shall be on December 2016.