logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2018.09.20 2018노436
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unlimited and unfair.

2. The facts that the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects his mistake, and that the philophones, which the Defendant imported, and the philophones possessed through H, were entirely seized and are not distributed on the market.

However, crimes related to narcotics, etc. committed by the defendant are likely to cause serious adverse effects on society as a whole, such as impairing national health or inducing other crimes, as well as avoiding the body and mind of an individual with a serious toxicity or radio wave.

In addition, even though the Defendant was found to have imported philophones by inserting approximately 50.15g philophones in 2010 and entering the Kimhae Airport, he resisted to China without faithfully undergoing investigation, and the Defendant continued to reside in China, but has a high risk of carrying philophones in Korea through buphones, etc.

The amount of penphones imported by the defendant is about 50.15g, and the amount of penphones in collusion with H is about 202.5g, which is a large amount of 2,000 times or more that can be administered.

In 2006, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 7 million due to the possession and medication of phiphones.

Considering these points, there is a great need to punish the accused strictly.

If there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment, and considering the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the conditions of sentencing and the scope of recommended sentencing according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.

arrow