마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence) by the provision of Meptacule (floilphone, hereinafter “philopon”), among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant, while being aware of the Defendant’s place of selling philopon through P after being confined to the former correctional institution, was aware of the Defendant’s place of selling philopon, he partially provided philopon through the prosecutor’s office and the military investigation conducted by P, which became aware of the relevant information, and this constitutes an illegal naval investigation. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the act of naval investigation, which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one-year imprisonment, etc.) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine (illegal use of a vessel), Metepha (one philopon; hereinafter “philopon”) among the facts charged in the instant case is based on the following facts:
A) On April 19, 2014, the summary of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fluence) under the Provision of the Act is that the Defendant provided a fluoral phone with an amount equivalent to 14.18g a fluoral phone to a person who was in the name in the vicinity of a high-speed bus terminal in Geum-dong, Geum-dong, Geum-dong, without compensation, around 10:30 on April 19, 2014. As to this, the Defendant stated in the first prosecutor’s investigation that the Defendant issued approximately 20g a fluoral phone under the fluoral book before trading a fluoral phone in the scam within the scam, at the same time and place (f2 pages of evidence record). However, at the time of the investigation, the prosecutor presented the Defendant’s fluoral phone that was delivered to the Defendant with a scamine as a sample (Evidence No. 78, No. 80, 80, 64).14).