마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
Of the first, second, and fourth original judgments and third original judgments, the part against the defendant shall be reversed.
The defendant shall be sentenced to one year of imprisonment.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the crime of attempted larceny of the judgment of the court of the second instance, the defendant was in a state of mental disability due to the medication of salphonephone at the time of the instant crime.
B. The sentencing of the original judgment on the unfair sentencing (the first judgment on the sentencing: imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months: imprisonment of 1 year and 2 months: imprisonment of 4 months: imprisonment of 2 years and 4 months: imprisonment of 4 months) is too unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio following the merger, the case of appeal by the first instance court 2013No2618, the appeal by the second instance court 2013No329, the appeal by the second instance court 2014No309, the appeal by the third instance court 2014No309, the appeal by the second instance court 2014No15, the appeal by the second instance court 2014No309, the appeal by the third instance court 2014, the appeal by the second instance court 2014No309, the appeal by the third instance court 201, the first instance court 204No309, the appeal by the third instance court 201, the first instance court 200, the first instance court 3 of the first instance court 37, should be sentenced to a single sentence within the period of punishment imposed by aggravated crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this respect, all the parts on the defendant are reversed.
3. Despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal as to the claim of mental disability, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is still subject to a trial at the trial, and this is examined.
Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant administered a phiphone immediately before the crime of this case, but in light of various circumstances such as the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, it cannot be seen that the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the phiphone medication at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion
4. Conclusion, 1, 2, 2.