마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
However, the period of three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the evidence of reinforcement, thereby acquitted the Defendant on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. due to the use of LSD (hereinafter “lsD”).
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, observation of protection, and community service order 120 hours) is too uneasy and unfair.
2. Determination
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is that the defendant used the first or second chapter of lsD purchased from F or I at around that time in the mutual infunch club or K Park at each time. The court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was insufficient to use it as evidence to reinforce each lsD use crime, and that there was no other evidence to reinforce the confession of the defendant.
However, evidence of reinforcement of confessions can only be satisfied if it is sufficient to recognize that the confession of a defendant is not a processed one, even though it is not sufficient to acknowledge the whole or essential part of the crime, and it is sufficient to prove that the confession of a defendant is true, not a processed one, as well as indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence not a direct evidence. In addition, if the confessions and reinforcement evidence are mutually consistent and it is possible to prove the crime as a whole, it is sufficient to prove the evidence of guilt (Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1897 Decided January 8, 2002). The defendant only confessions from the investigative agency to the court at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial, and the prosecution can not see circumstances that may suspect the voluntariness of confessions, such as the method of using lss, and the statement in a very fact and detail about slDs.
Moreover, the defendant stated that he used lsD purchased from F and I in the court of the first instance, and the defendant is the defendant.