마약류관리에관한법률위반(마약)등
1. Defendant A’s part against Defendant A and the second judgment of the lower court are reversed.
Defendant
A. Imprisonment.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the records of Defendant A, Defendant A was sentenced to the first instance judgment on November 29, 2019, and Defendant A submitted a petition of appeal to the lower court on December 1, 2020, and served the notification of receipt of the trial record by this court on January 6, 2020. Defendant A’s defense counsel filed a statement of grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing with this court on January 30, 2020, after the lapse of 20 days from the filing date of the petition of appeal. Defendant A’s petition of appeal submitted by Defendant A had no indication of the grounds for appeal on such grounds for appeal.
According to the above facts of recognition, the grounds of appeal submitted by the defense counsel of the defendant A against the first judgment of the court of first instance are unlawful, since they are not timely filed for the grounds of appeal.
However, as seen below, the judgment of the court of first instance and the second judgment against Defendant A should be reversed ex officio with respect to Defendant A by combining the first judgment and the second judgment. In addition, the first judgment erred in applying Articles 40 and 38 of the Criminal Act, which constitutes a ground for ex officio reversal under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the ground that the conclusion of the first judgment affects the conclusion of the judgment, which constitutes a ground for ex officio reversal under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Ultimately, each of the above judgment of the above judgment of the court below against Defendant A should be reversed and the judgment should be rendered again. Thus, this part of the ground for appeal by Defendant A also examined the part of the "the grounds for appeal" against
Each sentence sentenced to Defendant A in the first and second original judgments (the first original judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years and confiscation and collection, and the second original judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed on Defendant I by the first instance judgment of Defendant I (a three-year imprisonment, a four-year suspension of execution, confiscation, and collection) is too excessive.