beta
인천지방법원 2012.12.21 2012고단11122

마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On April 13, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (mariju) at the Incheon District Court on the same year.

7.27. A person for whom the above judgment has become final and conclusive is not a narcotics handler.

On September 201, the Defendant smoked in the ward of the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government Cpenta building, using tobacco, the hemp plants that D wn directly wn out from her body with a fluorh with a fluorh with a fluorh, and with a fluorh with a fluorh with a fluorh

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning D;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. An investigation report (additional replys to requests for appraisal);

1. Before judgment: Application of the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records and investigation reports (report attached to judgment);

1. The former Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (amended by Act No. 10786, Jun. 7, 2011) concerning criminal facts

(hereinafter the same shall apply.

[1] Article 61(1)8 and Article 3 subparag. 11

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Probation and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The sentencing under the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. can be conducted for the reason of sentencing, and the criminal defendant was punished for the same kind of offense. However, the criminal act of this case was denied at the investigation stage, in comparison with the case where the criminal act of this case was committed for ex post concurrent crimes and was tried simultaneously with the case where the criminal act of this case was committed, and the criminal defendant appears to reflect his mistake when he was led to confession in this court, and the sentencing factors