마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
All appeals are dismissed.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. According to the records on Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.
In such cases, an appeal shall not be filed with the Supreme Court on the grounds that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of additional collection charges.
In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing may be filed only where the court below rendered a death penalty, imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than ten years, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years. Thus, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the
2. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant B in light of the evidence adopted by the first instance court maintained by the lower court, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of the charge of smoking marijuana among the facts charged against the Defendant, of the fact that philophone medication was conducted around May 16, 2013, and of the violation of the Road Traffic Act.
In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of logic and experience or by misapprehending the legal principles on the rules of evidence.
Meanwhile, according to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing may only be filed in cases where the court below rendered death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for an indefinite term or for not less than ten years. Thus, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the grounds for the imposition of punishment too unreasonable cannot
3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.