마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable as the punishment imposed by the court below (three years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution) is too unhutiled.
2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the
In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,
(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The gist of the instant crime is that the Defendant imported approximately 1,890g of hemps in collusion with C and B by allowing the Defendant to arrive at the Incheon State Port where approximately 1,890gs of hemps are concealed, for which the Defendant, in collusion with C and B, was sent.
Narcotics crimes are not easy to detect due to their characteristics, and the risk of recidivism is high, and they have a significant negative impact on society as a whole due to decliability, toxicity, etc.
Moreover, the crime of importing marijuana, such as the instant case, is likely to cause the spread of marijuana and the additional crimes resulting therefrom, and thus, the liability for such crime is not weak.
The crime of this case appears to have been committed systematically and professionally, and the quantity of marijuana imported by the defendant is about 1,890g.
Provided, That all marijuana imported by the defendant shall be seized and circulated.