마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The judgment below
Of the disposition No. 2, "No. 1 through 3" of the order No. 2.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On September 9, 2015, the Defendant did not have the original criminal intent to sell philophones. As to the Defendant’s attempted to sell and sell philophones, the investigative agency provided an investigation of non-detained with regard to a separate crime.
C The defendant was arrested at the site of the arrest of this case by allowing the defendant to suggest that the defendant sell philophones by suggesting the defendant to sell philophones, thereby inducing the criminal intent of selling philophones. This part of the prosecution based on such an investigation is invalid in violation of the provisions of the law.
With regard to the interference with the execution of the duties of the police officer, the police officer did not disclose that the defendant was a police officer at the time of arresting the defendant as the current offender, and sponsed the defendant as the object such as the spons of the defendant's vehicle which was in the front time, and the defendant who was playing the sprinked on the balc sp, sponsed by the defendant's vehicle toward the front side, and sponsed the left side of the police officer K.
The above acts of police officers cannot be deemed legitimate performance of official duties. Since the defendant did not know that he was a police officer at the time, there was no intention to obstruct the performance of official duties. The defendant's act constitutes "the time of fear, bad faith, entertainment, or confusion under the night or other extraordinary circumstances," and thus constitutes excessive escape under Article 22 (3) of the Criminal Act.
On the other hand, the film image data submitted by the prosecutor as evidence is inadmissible because the original is damaged and the vehicle of the defendant was duplicated only about about 20 seconds.
Fidelity AB’s receipt of philophones and the administration of philophones on September 6, 2014, the Defendant did not have issued AB a philophones or administered philophones, and the statement made by AB is about the place and frequency of receipt of philophones from the Defendant.