마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
Punishment for B shall be determined by four months.
1. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s determination on Defendant A’s unfair assertion of sentencing, and the sentencing of the lower court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it should be respected (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s determination since the said court did not submit new materials of sentencing in the instant case.
In addition, taking into account all the factors of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, including the fact that Defendant A purchased approximately 10g of marijuana and conspired with Defendant A to purchase approximately 22g of marijuana and committed a crime during the repeated crime period, and that the nature of the crime was not negligible, it cannot be said that the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is excessively unreasonable and beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.
Defendant A’s assertion that the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable is rejected.
2. According to the records of this case’s ex officio determination as to Defendant B, Defendant B, who was sentenced to imprisonment for not less than eight months on October 28, 2016 with labor for interference with the performance of official duties, etc. in the wooden Branch of the Gwangju District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 24, 2017.
As above, since the crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive and the crime of this case are concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a sentence for the crime of this case shall be imposed by taking into account equity and the case at the same time pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part on Defendant B among the judgment below is no longer maintained.
3. In conclusion, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by Defendant B, on the grounds that there are grounds for reversal ex officio as seen earlier.