마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The punishment imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (exemption from each punishment) is excessively unhutiled and unfair.
2. In the judgment-related crimes involving narcotics, etc., it is not easy to detect the characteristics that are closely traded and administered, and the risk of recidivism is high due to their cryptability, toxicity, etc. and social harm is very high.
The Defendants conspired to sell marijuana more than 12 times and took part in the crime. In light of the substance of the crime, the Defendants’ nature of the crime is not good.
In particular, Defendant A committed the instant crime during the period of probation.
As above, the Defendants are disadvantageous to the Defendants.
However, the crime of this case is to be determined by taking into account the equality in cases where the judgment becomes final and conclusive simultaneously with the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., on July 12, 2019, with respect to the act of selling ls and marijuana on a total of 30 occasions between February 26, 2019 and March 18, 2019, in collusion with the sale of narcotics in name, the Defendants were sentenced to a suspension of the execution of 3 years imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court on July 20, 2019, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 20, 2019.
The crime of this case is the crime of selling the same narcotics, etc. in collusion with the same name in collusion with the same person from February 28, 2019 to March 16, 2019, which is within the period of the above crime. The Defendants actively led the crime of selling marijuana in this case, as in the above crime, etc. for which the judgment became final and conclusive.
More than that of the above name, it is nothing more than a passive allocation of a part of the action in accordance with the specific direction for the sale of narcotics.
In light of this, even if the judgment of this case was rendered simultaneously with the above crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive, it cannot be seen that the punishment was no longer imposed.
Furthermore, the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor in the trial are considered sufficiently in determining the punishment already in the original trial, and others.