마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Defendant .
The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair form of punishment) of the court below (one year and three months of imprisonment, one year and one year of imprisonment, and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
Defendant
The circumstances are as follows: (a) Defendant A led to the instant crime; (b) Defendant A reflects his own mistake in depth; and (c) there are family members to support A.
However, the crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the defendant A, where the defendant A smokes and keeps marijuana taken by the defendant, and keeps and administers the phiphones after purchasing them on several occasions, or arranges the trade of phiphones. The amount of marijuana and phiphones handled by the defendant A is not so big, and even in light of the frequency of the crime, the responsibility for the crime is more severe, and the fact that the defendant had been punished several times for the same crime is committed.
This is from 1 year to 3 years 1 years : The scope of recommendation and sentence with respect to the instant crime according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Commission: Type 2 (mariju, farite, farite, c., etc.), i.e., drug crime group, trade mediation, etc.; the field of recommendation; the decision-making (basic field); the scope of recommendation and sentence (1-2 years), ii: Type 2 (marith, far, b. and c.), i.e., drug crime group; the range of recommendation and sentence with respect to the instant crime; the scope of recommendation and sentence with respect to the instant crime according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Commission; the sentencing range (1-2 years), 2 (math, b. c., etc.; the field of recommendation; the scope of recommendation (basic recommendation) and recommendation (1-2 years or more); the sentencing scope; the circumstances of the instant crime are too unfair; and the sentencing scope of the instant crimes are not acknowledged.
Defendant
A’s assertion is without merit.
Defendant
B Concerning the instant crime, Defendant B received written phone and marijuana, assisted Defendant B to trade written phone, or administered written phone and marijuana.