마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) is too heavy or (the Defendant) is too heavy.
2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.
In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion and is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant all recognized the instant criminal act and is against all the recognition.
Of the instant crimes, two instances of purchase of philophones were attempted.
After committing the instant crime, the Defendant seems to have made active efforts, such as receiving mental therapy, in order to escape from narcotics addiction.
However, the narcotics crime is not only to avoid the mental and physical disorder of an individual, but also to eradicate social harm of the crime with a great degree of punishment.
The defendant has the past record of having been sentenced to criminal punishment, and has committed the crime of this case again at least four months since the execution of the sentence was terminated by imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime, and there is a high possibility of criticism and criticism.
The lower court, taking into account all the above circumstances, determined the punishment, and when it comes to a serious trial, imposed special sentencing conditions.