마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (one year and nine months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too heavy.
2. At the trial of the judgment party, a reply to the facts on the cooperation of the defendant with respect to the narcotics investigation of the defendant has reached.
Examining the specific contents, the defendant's main office P and accompanied P informed Q in Q holding marijuana on June 12, 2017.
Q arrested on the basis of the above information, R and S smoked marijuana with themselves.
In the end, the above three persons could be arrested.
The three persons who were arrested as a health unit and the three persons who were arrested as a result of the prosecution of the defendant on July 13, 2017.
7.22. & 3.00
8. 13. The charges charged that marijuana was smoked were the summary indictment.
In other words, the above three persons are not in connection with the defendant's drug crime.
Moreover, the date of the O’s information was written on June 12, 2017, and the Defendant was prosecuted for committing a crime stating that “the Defendant administered and dried phiphones on June 27, 2017,” which was after the date of such information.
The circumstances in which theO has been delegated by the defendant are also unclear.
B. A. another third party, if I.D. re-examinesO as its own land, there is a concern that it will be used to respond to a factual inquiry about the third party's cooperation in the investigation of narcotics in the trial of the third party.
Even if the arrest of the above narcotics offender was made through the information of the third party (P) who was designated as the person who was not the delivery of the defendant, and accompanied by the third party (P), it is not the information of the defendant, and it is not the information of the defendant, and it is difficult to view it as a cooperation to the extent that the evaluation of the defendant's responsibility for action is different.
In addition, the lower court’s sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s age, intelligence and intelligence environment; (b) the motive and consequence of the Defendant’s act; and (c) the circumstances after the commission of the crime; and
It is reasonable to find out circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.