마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
All the judgment below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months, and imprisonment for one year and six months, respectively.
1. The sentencing of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (the sentencing of the defendant A: imprisonment of one year and additional collection of 3470,000 won; imprisonment of two years and additional collection of 170,000 won) is too unreasonable.
2. In full view of the following circumstances in determining the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s punishment imposed on the Defendants is deemed unreasonable, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion is with merit.
Defendant
A favorable circumstances: A Confession of a crime and reflects. It is submitted to the court for the first time. The scope of the recommended sentence in the sentencing guidelines falls within the scope of imprisonment of 8 months or 2 years or 9 months (in the area of mitigation (important investigation cooperation). There is no criminal conviction. There is no criminal conviction. There is no unfavorable circumstance: 4 times of telephonephone sales, 2 times of purchase, 5 times of medication, 5 times of crime, and 2 times of crime. The same kind of crime and two times of crime are pleasure.
Defendant
The favorable circumstances in B: The confession of crimes and reflects. It appears that the scope of the recommended sentence in the sentencing guidelines is between one year to three years [the previous areas within three years and/or two important investigative cooperations)] of multiple crimes (the crime of Article 2 and 3 shall be calculated in the area of mitigation and/or assistance in each transaction or good offices by reflecting the self-denunciation and important investigation cooperation)]. The balance between the defendant A and the defendant should also be taken into account. Unfavorable circumstances: 4 times of telephonephone purchase, 10 times of crimes, 10 times of crimes, and 6 times of crimes, the number of times of crimes, and 6 times of crimes. The defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing is reasonable, and the defendant's assertion of the repeated crime is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is reversed in accordance with the oral proceedings as follows.
[Dao-written judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by this court and summary of evidence are the same as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.