마약류관리에관한법률위반(마약)등
1. Of the judgment below,
A. The part against Defendant A is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and six months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (A) did not sell narcotics on February 12, 2019.
B) At the time of February 22, 2019, Thailand owned by Thailand was Kenya and MDMA, and it was limited to the smallest amount that could be concealed in the transferred panty panty. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, one year of confiscation, and one million won of collection) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B(1) was aware that the goods possessed in Thailand at the time of February 22, 2019 were not narcotics but narcotics. Even if the goods possessed were narcotics, Defendant B was aware that the goods were imported in Thailand.
B) At the time of February 22, 2019, Defendant A was the Plaintiff, and Defendant B did not participate in the smuggling of the narcotics. (C) At the time of February 22, 2019, the volume of the smuggling was mistakenly stated, and there was no fact that Cocar was sealed.
2) In light of the fact that the lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection KRW 400,000) is too unreasonable and unfair, Defendant A was sold at the request of Defendant B, Defendant A, who introduced Defendant A to the full-time officer who sold the previous narcotics, also was Defendant B, Defendant B was present at the position where he was taken over from his full-time officer, Defendant B was informed of the method of contact with Defendant A, Defendant A was informed of the method of contact with the upper-time officer, and that Defendant B was expected to have divided the profits generated from the sale of narcotics. In so doing, Defendant B is liable as a joint principal offender even with regard to Defendant A’s attempted sale of ccar on April 30, 2019, and attempted sale of MDMA.
2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair. 2. Determination ex officio (the amendment of the indictment at the trial of the lower court is that “MMA 207, ls207, ls208, ls33.28gs, Kenya 87.6gs, Handphone 6.28gs,” and “MMA 205 and 0.89gs, ls 205 and ls 12gs,” in the facts charged in the case of No. 2019, 33377.3.