마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Seized evidence 1 and 2 shall be confiscated, respectively.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. According to the prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the charges of attempted crime of this case on the ground that the defendant did not have an intent to commit the crime of attempted crime of this case, although the defendant had been fully aware of the intent to commit the crime of attempted crime of this case, or erred by misapprehending the legal principles
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unfortunate and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Before ex officio determination on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor added ex officio the facts charged for attempted prosecution in the trial as the primary facts charged, and added the following facts charged as the ancillary facts charged. The name of the crime “the name of the conjunctive crime: Violence” was added to the name of the crime, and “Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act” was added to “Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act” under the applicable law, and the subject of the trial was added by this Court’s permission.
In addition, as seen earlier, the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of the ancillary charge, and the offense of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence to), which the lower court found the Defendant guilty, and the offense of assault, which is found guilty in the first sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, should be sentenced to a single sentence in the concurrent offense relationship under the first sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal
However, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court.
B. Determination on the misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the primary facts charged 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant was a victim H (the victim H, who was administering a phiphone while he administered a phiphone in the front of the G convenience store located in Busan Jung-gu around November 9, 2016.