마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The judgment below
Part of confiscation and collection shall be reversed.
Three divers for diversary injections (open divers, No. 1).
1. On September 16, 2014, the lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence) among the facts charged in the instant case, and convicted the remainder of the facts charged.
However, since only the Defendant appealed the guilty portion among the judgment below and did not appeal all the prosecutor and the Defendant, the acquittal portion among the judgment below became final and conclusive as it is.
Therefore, only the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below is subject to the judgment of this court.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-finding 1) The Defendant did not sell or purchase a penphone as stated in paragraphs (a) through (c) of Article 1 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below. 2) The Defendant did not provide a penphone to M as stated in paragraph (1) of Article 2 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below.
3) Although there is a fact that the Defendant committed the same act as the written in Paragraph (c) of Article 2 of the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, it is merely a reduction of plastic bags containing philophones, and it does not constitute an intentional act of carrying philophones. Furthermore, insofar as the Defendant’s husband P was punished for committing the crime of carrying philophones, punishment for additional punishment constitutes double punishment. (B) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and eight months, confiscation, and collection are too unreasonable).
3. Ex officio determination
(a) Where any seized article does not exist at the time a judgment on the confiscated article is rendered, or any seized article is already destroyed pursuant to Articles 130(2) and (3) and 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court may not pronounce the confiscation of such article;
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6982, Jan. 28, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4182, Jun. 14, 2012). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court issued a single proof of disposable injection, which contains three disposable injection equipment (No. 1) confiscated by the Defendant, and 0.1 marculous liquid dilution.