beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.02.17 2015노1291

마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was physically and mentally weak due to depression.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the 6 months of imprisonment, confiscation, and 600,000 additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following: (a) acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness; (b) comprehensively taking account of the background leading up to the instant crime; (c) the means and method of the commission of the crime; (d) the Defendant’s act before and after the commission of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the commission of the crime, at the time

As such, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant had been convicted of two times of suspended execution due to the same crime; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of suspended execution due to the same crime; and (c) the motive and background leading up to the instant crime; (b) the Defendant’s age after the instant crime; and (c) various other factors of sentencing indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, and environment, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable; and (d) the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

(c)

The judgment below

Of the judgment on the amount of additional collection ex officio, 200,000 won borne by H, an accomplice, should be included in the amount of additional collection and 300,000 won per each of the Defendant and H, despite the fact that there was an error of law in collecting only KRW 100,00 from the Defendant. However, in this case where only the Defendant appealed, it cannot be collected more than the original judgment in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the lower judgment is not reversed on this ground.

3. Conclusion.