마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The sentence of the lower court (the penalty of KRW 1.6 months in prison, KRW 1.2 million in prison, KRW 1.2 million in prison, and KRW 1.2 million in prison) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.
However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.
In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.
In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) Circumstances asserted as favorable factors in sentencing in the first instance trial, including the fact that the Defendant recognized the crime and was divided and did not repeat the crime, etc., are revealed in the hearing of the lower court.
In particular, according to the results of the fact-finding on the Chuncheon District Public Prosecutor's Office, it is recognized that the defendant actively cooperated in the investigation, such as informing the upper party of the fact, but this seems to have already been reflected in the sentencing of the lower court.
Furthermore, the defendant has been punished for the same crime four times and has been punished for repeated crimes of the same kind, and he administered or she philophones, and philophones to others during the period of repeated crimes of the same kind.