마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
Seized evidence (Evidence...) Nos. 3 through 6, 8, 9, 11 through 22
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the manufacturing of marijuana in the facts charged in the instant case of violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, the Defendant: (a) made an anti-high body body body body body form a string, and divided it by a certain weight; (b) it merely divided the body body into subdivision, i.e., small quantity without changing the hemp ingredients; and (c) it merely divided the body body into subdivision, subdivision, i.e., small quantity., manufacturing., marijuana amount.
It is difficult to see it.
In such a manner, the Defendant manufactured marijuana.
The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension and application of the "production" of marijuana, etc. prescribed by the Narcotics Control Act (hereinafter "Narcotic Control Act"), which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of the lower court (a 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) which is improper in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of violation of law
A. Article 59(1)7 of the Narcotics Control Act provides that “any person who manufactures, trades, or assists in the trade of marijuana, in violation of Article 3 subparag. 7, or who holds or possesses it for that purpose shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year.” Article 3 subparag. 7 provides that no person shall export, import, manufacture, trade, or assist in the trade of marijuana.”
Article 2 subparagraph 5 (b) of the Narcotics Control Act shall include the manufacture (including the manufacture and subdivision) of narcotics or psychotropic drugs.
hereinafter the same applies) provides that “a person engaged in business” as above, and as long as “the manufacture” under Article 59(1)7 of the Narcotics Control Act is stipulated as “the foregoing,” it should be viewed as including “manufacture or subdivision” as well as “manufacture or subdivision.”
In this case, the defendant himself recognized that he had tried to bring about the sea of marijuana, which is the first class of marijuana, so the defendant's act in accordance with the above provisions of the Narcotics Control Act shall be considered as marijuana.