마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) There is no fact that the Defendant misjudgments the fact that he sells a mert campon (tentatively called philopon; hereinafter “philopon”).
(2) The lower court’s sentencing (one year and two months of fine, additional collection KRW 700,00) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s determination that recognized the credibility of the witness G’s testimony, which is a valuable evidence supporting the instant facts charged, is difficult to view the lower court’s determination as a sufficient and acceptable circumstance, and the lower court’s determination that the Defendant was guilty of the instant facts charged by the determination of evidence is reasonable.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.
B. Examining the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, despite having been placed on the place of probation for the same kind of crime on 2010 and 2013, the Defendant committed the instant crime at the same time during the period of probation, on the other hand, when examining the motive leading to the instant crime, the Defendant’s motive leading up to the instant crime, the act of selling one-time and several other circumstances indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, career, environment, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is determined within the reasonable and appropriate scope, and it is not determined that the Defendant is excessively heavy or unreasonable.
Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant and prosecutor's argument.
3. The appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is groundless, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.