마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is recognized as favorable to the Defendant, such as: (a) the confession of the instant crime and the statement that his mistake is divided in depth; (b) the Defendant’s family members want to take the Defendant’s wife; (c) the instant crime committed by the Defendant is limited to one time for smoking marijuana; and (d) the Defendant’s long-term detention may involve excessive difficulty to his dependants.
However, in addition to the previous convictions who were subject to suspended sentence twice due to the same type of crime, it is highly likely to be subject to criticism during the period of suspended sentence due to the same type of crime even though the defendant had been subject to criminal punishment several times due to the same crime, and the social harm caused by the crime of narcotics is serious. Considering the various circumstances of the defendant, the court below seems to have sentenced a sentence of one year to imprisonment within the scope of the recommended sentence set by the sentencing guidelines, and there is no special change in circumstances that may differ from the judgment of the court below in the court below. In full view of other various circumstances, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, character and character, intelligence and environment, motive and background, means and consequence of the crime of this case, criminal records, conditions after the crime, family relations, etc., the defendant's argument that the sentence imposed by the court below is inappropriate and too unreasonable is not justified.
3. The judgment below ex officio should have collected the amount of KRW 1,500 (see the opinion of the prosecutor at the second trial date) of the price for marijuana 0.5g during the time when the defendant smoked pursuant to the proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act, but it is reasonable to collect the amount equivalent to the omitted amount. However, the case in which the defendant appealed only.