마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The judgment below
The guilty portion and the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to the philopon waterway around January 25, 2015.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.
B. As long as prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (A) committed a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flaps) due to the sale of philophones on February 2015, the Defendant issued a philophone with H KRW 700,000 and philophones containing H, this part of the facts charged is sufficiently recognized.
The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
(B) On January 25, 2015, the Defendant led to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to the philopon waterway, and there is reinforced evidence to support this part of the facts charged.
The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there was no reinforced evidence, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.
(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. On February 2015, the lower court explained in detail that the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flapsing to the end of February 2015) due to the sale of philophones constitutes “the act of selling philophones in the middle of February 2015” under the title “the act of selling philophones in the middle of February 2015,” and determined that it was difficult to view that this part of the facts charged by the Defendant who sold philophones to H was proven without reasonable doubt.
Examining the judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.
(b) by Handphones on January 25, 2015.