beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.06.13 2013노3195

마약류관리에관한법률위반(마약)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, although the Defendant did not cultivate the cost of return of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of judgment

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, namely, that the amount of return, which was 70 weeks from the frequency of the defendant's operation, the defendant himself/herself stated from May 2013 to the investigative agency that he/she continued to grow, and the defendant made a statement at the investigative agency that he/she knows that the amount of return was used as the substance of narcotics and is prohibited from cultivating the amount of return, and that the defendant knew that the amount of return was used as the substance of narcotics, and that he/she would be released from the front of the factory in which the amount of return was cultivated, and that the portion of the amount of return return was 70 weeks, as argued by the defendant, and that it would be difficult for the defendant to grow in the same form as the amount of return, as stated in the facts charged in this case, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is just and there is no error of law as alleged in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The assertion on unreasonable sentencing constitutes favorable circumstances, such as that the Defendant did not have any history of punishment for the previous and the Defendant did not appear to have cultivated the quantity of return due to a contingency. However, considering all the above circumstances, the lower court appears to have rendered a sentence more reduced than the amount of the summary order (five million won) and the Defendant cultivated.