마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not have any fact that the Defendant sold philophones to E two times, and E is difficult to believe the statement, such as the time of purchasing philophones and the reversal of the statement about the purchase price, etc., but the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court convicted the Defendant on the grounds of E’s statement, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. In light of the following, the court below's judgment and the court below's duly adopted and examined evidence, and the defendant can fully recognize the fact that he sold phiphones to E two times as shown in the facts charged, so it is reasonable for the court below to render a conviction against the defendant, and it cannot be said that there were any errors in the above judgment below.
E stated that the time when the Defendant purchased the first penphone from the Defendant (crime 1 of the original judgment), ① from the police investigation on December 20, 2013 to around May 6, 2013 (Evidence Records No. 100), ② from the police investigation on the same day, the Defendant stated “3 p.m. on June 1, 2013” (Evidence Records No. 106 pages), ③ from the police investigation on December 25, 2013, the Defendant stated that “the first time of purchase was c.m. on June 2013, 2013” (Evidence No. 124 of the Evidence Records) and ④ from the police investigation on the first time to the effect that “the first time of purchase was 3 p.m. on July 11, 2013” was difficult to view that the first time of purchase was 16 p.m. from the Defendant’s reply to the police investigation at the time of purchase.
See consistent statements made on October 2013 (police 3 times) for the period of purchasing the second penphone from the accused.