마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Of the judgment of the second court, the case No. 2018 Godan6524 is decided.
1. Of the judgment of the court below in the second instance against Defendant A, the court below acquitted Defendant A of the part 3,4, and 5 (each of the fraud committed on June 18, 2015, July 17, 2015, and August 4, 2015) in the list of crimes (hereinafter “instant list of crimes”) as indicated in the judgment of the court in the case No. 2018, 6524 among the facts charged against Defendant A, and convicted Defendant A of the remainder of the facts charged.
However, since only Defendant A appealed the above guilty part and the above acquittal part of the judgment of the court of second instance became final and conclusive, the scope of the judgment of the court of second instance against Defendant A is limited to the above guilty part.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) The Defendant P alone committed each of the crimes described in the crime list No. 1 and No. 2 of this case’s mistake of facts, and he did not participate in it at all, and the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts. 2) The court below’s punishment against Defendant A of unfair sentencing (the court below’s imprisonment: one year and six months, confiscation, and collection, and the second judgment: the court below’s imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes described in the judgment of the case No. 2018Kadan6524, 4 months, 2018 Godan688) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant P 1) Defendant A alone committed each of the crimes described in No. 6, 7, and 8 of the crime sight table of this case in mistake of facts. Defendant A alone committed, and he did not participate in the crime at all, and the judgment of the second court which found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts. 2) The punishment of the second court below on Defendant P of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
3. Examining ex officio judgment (the part against Defendant A) prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, the part against Defendant A among the judgment below for the following reasons cannot be maintained as it is.
However, the second judgment is made in spite of these reasons for ex officio destruction.