마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
No. 1 of the seized evidence shall be confiscated.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (eight months of imprisonment) is too heavy or (the Defendant) it is too heavy.
2. We examine both the judgment and the prosecutor’s respective unfair claims for sentencing.
The Defendant made a confession of all of the crimes of this case and the prevention of recurrence.
The parents of the defendant are not healthy due to old age, and the defendant supports his parents.
The defendant was only engaged in possession, purchase, and medication of philophones, but did not proceed to the distribution such as selling.
There are favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as seeking a life by actively preventing a person detained in the same detention room after the case from attempting suicide.
However, the handling of narcotics, including philophones, marijuana, etc., by itself, is highly likely to lead to another crime in a state where the nature of the crime is bad, smoking or medication, etc., and social harm and injury is very rough.
The Defendant repeatedly committed each of the crimes of this case after the lapse of two years from the date on which he was sentenced to a suspended sentence due to the administration of clopon, etc. in 2015.
Above all, although the appropriate sentence of this case according to the sentencing criteria table of the Supreme Court is from 1 year to 5 years, the court below seems to have rendered a sentence of substantial escape from the lower limit without any special reason that should be different from the same kind of case.
This is disadvantageous to the defendant.
In addition, in full view of all the sentencing conditions, including the defendant's age, environment, motive and background of the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the court below seems to be too uneasible and unfair.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit and the prosecutor's argument is with merit.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows (the defendant's appeal is not accepted, but the prosecutor's appeal is not accepted.