마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 2 months) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. It is recognized that there are circumstances such as the fact that Defendant A recognized and reflected the instant crime, and cooperation in the investigation of narcotics.
However, the crime of this case is that the defendant provided and administered philophones free of charge, sold approximately KRW 5g 80,000,000 of philophones to approximately KRW 500,000,00, and the nature of the crime is significant. The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment on December 2, 2014 and completed the execution of the punishment on December 16, 2015, but again committed the crime of this case, again, the crime of this case constitutes a repeated crime, and the defendant was punished seven times (4 times in actual punishment) due to the same crime, and other various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and changes of the case, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is not heavier.
B. It is recognized that there are circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime, and cooperation in the investigation of narcotics.
However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to one year and two months of imprisonment for the crime of narcotics on October 2014, and completed the execution of the sentence on November 6, 2015; (b) the Defendant again constitutes a repeated crime by receiving and administering the penphones without compensation; (c) the Defendant had the past record of eight times (seven times of punishment for the same crime); (d) the Defendant’s past record reaches six times; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sex, and environment, and other various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant records and arguments on changes, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not heavy.
3. Accordingly, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.