마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.
In such a case, the argument that the lower court’s judgment adopted evidence irrelevant to admissibility as evidence of guilt does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal.
In addition, the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing established by the provisions of Article 81-2 of the Court Organization Act are general and objective criteria prepared for the rational sentencing in criminal trials, so it shall be respected when the type of punishment is selected and the sentence is determined, but it shall not have the legal binding force.
(Article 81-7(1) of the Court Organization Act. Therefore, on different premise, the lower court erred in its judgment in determining sentencing factors or in applying sentencing guidelines.
We cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that there was an error in failing to explain the reasons for sentencing.
In addition, the argument that there is an error of failing to exhaust all the deliberation on the circumstances affecting the sentencing or exceeding the limit of discretion on the sentencing is ultimately an allegation of unfair sentencing.
However, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed is allowed to file an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing
On the other hand, the argument that the date of sentencing is postponed so as not to cause a reduction of the number of grounds for appeal cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.