마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
10,300,000 won shall be collected from the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the original judgment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The appellate court shall, in principle, examine the grounds that affect the judgment prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, in principle, on the grounds contained in the grounds for appeal, but on the other hand, on the grounds that adversely affected the judgment, even if not included in the grounds for appeal (Articles 364(1) and 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The lower court, based on the relevant evidence, found all of the facts charged, guilty of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court recognized the amount of intermediation of marijuana as “8g” on the grounds of arranging the purchase of marijuana 7 times in the table of crimes in annexed Form 2 among the points of intermediation for the purchase of marijuana in annexed judgment.
However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, with regard to the conciliation for the purchase of marijuana at the end of 7gs in the attached Table 2 of the judgment below, the defendant received 600,000 won in cash at the request of "Seong M" around September 26, 2015, and transferred 200,000 won to the account in the name of "D," used by the defendant as well as 80,000 won in cash, and then delivered 8gs from D around September 28, 2015 and purchased 2gs at the defendant's expense purchased at the defendant's expense. As to the purchase of marijuana at the expense of 2gs in the attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court below, the defendant was indicted separately once in the attached Table 3 of the crimes (each number).
It can be recognized that the remainder of 6g, excluding Eul, Eul, was a fluorous fact to 'Ma', and according to the facts of the above recognition, the 6g "6g" is an arrangement for the purchase of marijuana at least 7 times in the table of offenses in attached Form 2 (Good Offices) at the moment.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the amount of an arrangement for the purchase of marijuana 8g in the case of arranging the purchase of marijuana 7 times at the net time of the annexed crime list of crimes 2. In so doing, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.