마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)
[Defendant J] The appeal by Defendant J is dismissed.
[Defendant K and A] Part on Defendant K and A of the first judgment.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence sentenced to the first instance court (one year of imprisonment, etc.) by Defendant J (unfair imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. On July 12, 2019, Defendant K (F) and his defense counsel withdrawn the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (mariju) on the second day of the trial of the court.
Each punishment (one year, etc. of imprisonment with prison labor, and ten months of imprisonment with prison labor, etc.) sentenced by the first and third original trials is too unreasonable.
C. Defendant A (the misunderstanding of legal principles and inappropriate sentencing) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (hereinafter “Narcotic Drugs Control Act”)
(ii)the crime of this case by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles with respect to the crime of violation (mariju) is committed by the criminal investigation agency's criminal intent. (ii) The defendant A did not deceiving D, did not have any intention to obtain fraud, and even if guilty, the object of fraud is the amount equivalent to the profit of use or the rent for the use of the vehicle.
2) Each sentence sentenced by the first and second trials of unfair sentencing (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, confiscation, collection, and second instance: imprisonment with prison labor for eight months is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination - We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant K and the consolidated defendant K and A.
Defendant
The first, third and second first and second judgments against K were pronounced, and both Defendant K and A appealed. This Court decided to jointly examine each appeal case against the first, second, and third original judgments.
Defendant
Each of the crimes in the first and third original judgments against K, the crimes in the first and second original judgments against Defendant A, and the concurrent crimes in each of the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, one of the crimes in the first and third original judgments is to be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the part against Defendant K and A, and the second and third original judgments of
However, there is a reason for the above ex officio reversal.