화학물질관리법위반(환각물질흡입)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The lower court rendered a sentence that considers sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, family relation, family environment, motive and means of a crime, and circumstances after a crime, was determined based on the following factors: (a) the Defendant is a single repeated offender; (b) three times of the same type of punishment; (c) the Defendant’s age;
The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.
The defendant has weak addiction to narcotics, there is no victim of the crime, and considering the defendant's educational background, social life, inclination, environment, etc., there is no possibility that he will be transferred to the second crime, and there is a high possibility of rehabilitation.
argument is asserted.
However, the inhalement of hallucinogenic substances is not only prejudicial to social soundness due to its addiction and side effects, but also it is necessary to strictly punish them since they are highly likely to cause secondary damage by putting them into other crimes in a hallculative state. Since there are many kinds of records for the defendant, it is difficult to say that there is no possibility that they will be addicted to hallucinogenic substances, or that they will not be transferred to second crimes, as argued by the defendant.
However, even though it is recognized that the defendant led to an offense and reflects his depth, the sentencing conditions prior to the trial have been significantly changed even considering this.
It is difficult to see the above sentencing conditions and the scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing guidelines for the inhalement of hallucinogenic substances (in the case of medication and simple possession, etc., of hallucinogenic substances). In full view of the category 1 (in the case of August 1 to June), the aggravated area (in the case of special aggravated persons: the same previous conviction and the same (in the case of suspended execution for not more than 3 years), it is difficult to see that the court below’s punishment is unfair because it is excessively unreasonable
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.