마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
However, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for three years and collection) is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment of narcotics crimes are disadvantageous to the following: (a) not only cause the body and mind of an individual, but also cause harm to the public health or causes another crime; and (b) the Defendant imported philophones beyond the administration of philophones and marijuana.
However, the fact that the defendant did not import philophones for the purpose of distributing other persons, and did not fall under 1g of transfer thereof, voluntarily surrenders to the investigation agency as to some crimes, and cooperate in arresting other narcotics offenders, the defendant's mistake is divided, reflected, and again does not commit a narcotics crime, and there is no other penalty record other than a single fine for the same crime, etc., can be considered as favorable circumstances.
In full view of such circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and all of the factors of sentencing as shown in the pleadings in the instant case, the sentence sentenced by the lower court is unreasonable compared to the degree of Defendant’s responsibility.
Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is justified.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and the judgment below is ruled as follows after pleading.
[Grounds for the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of the evidence recognized by the court and summary of the facts constituting the crime of the original judgment
1. The Defendant, “0.42g” of “0.6g”, was seized on July 20, 2017, up to the 31st day of the same month. The amount of the seized penphone is 0.42g, and it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s sealed penphone is 0.42g. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s sealed penphone is 0.42g.