마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (a prison term of one year and eight months, confiscation, and collection) is too heavy.
2. At the trial of the judgment party, the Defendant’s response to the factual cooperation in the investigation of narcotics has arrived.
W, the defendant's land, reported X and Y to the South Y police station, and reported Y (the same person as the person who reported the above net police station) and Z to the local police agency in Gyeongnam-do.
On March 26, 2017, the Ministry of Health and X was prosecuted for the suspicion of scopon medication, and the Z was prosecuted for the suspicion of scopon medication and possession on June 14, 2017 and on June 15, 2017.
In other words, each of the above facts charged does not relate to the instant narcotics crime of the Defendant.
The date of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is that the arrest of the above X and Z on June 19, 2017 was not done in the first instance.
The Defendant informed AA during the trial of the lower court, and was arrested on June 7, 2017 by the said AA, which seems to have been considered as a reason favorable to the Defendant.
The defendant continues to inform him of the philophone handler he knows.
The circumstances seems to be fully reflected in the original judgment.
In other words, it cannot be ruled out that the defendant intentionally omitted the fact of cooperation with the investigation of the two persons who were arrested earlier or in a similar time.
Meanwhile, on the other hand, on September 28, 2016, Y was sentenced to one year of imprisonment on December 14, 2016 due to the suspicion of philopon possession, and the appeal was lodged, but on May 17, 2017, Y was sentenced to a judgment dismissing Y’s appeal (Seoul District Court Decision 2016 Daz. 3249, 2016 No. 3436). The Defendant was arrested on February 8, 2017 as a factory office of 2017 Daz. 872, and if the arrest of Y was made with W’s notification, it is highly probable that this does not cooperate with the Defendant in an investigation related to the crime.
Each of the above information is written by W, a third party who is the seat of the defendant, not the defendant, and it is clear that W was delegated by the defendant.