마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal as follows: C’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case is reasonable and specific; C made a statement to the effect that the Defendant did not receive a penphone from the Defendant at the lower court; but C made a confession of perjury that the statement was false; C was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to perjury, etc.; the judgment became final and conclusive; the Defendant’s cell phone dispatch base station was identical to Daegu Seo-gu E from February 16, 2013 to February 20:54; however, at around 19:00, the time of the crime was 19:00, the Defendant could have been allowed to leave the place where the instant crime was committed in the said base station; thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On February 16, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 19:00 on February 16, 2013, issued to the said C a free amount equivalent to twice psychotropic drugs for psychotropic drugs, within the Defendant’s high school-affiliated C’s car, parked on the street near the death boom-dong, Seo-gu, Daegu, Seo-gu, in front of the mutual incompetence.
Accordingly, the defendant accepted philophones.
B. The court below held that the second police interrogation protocol against C, the second police interrogation protocol against the defendant, the second police interrogation protocol against the defendant, the prosecutor's interrogation protocol against C, the prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the defendant, and the prosecutor's interrogation protocol against C. However, the following circumstances revealed by the records of this case are as follows: ① C, in the first police interrogation protocol, the police interrogation protocol was assigned to D, which is not the defendant, but the defendant was assigned to the defendant in the second police interrogation protocol and the prosecutor's investigation, but later, even if the defendant was designated as the defendant in the second police interrogation protocol and the prosecutor's investigation, it again stated D, which is not the defendant, as the witness in this court