beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the evidence submitted by a mistake of facts (written examination), the fact that the Defendant provided the F with approximately 0.7 grams of Mepta (one philopon; hereinafter “philopon”) to F on May 14, 2018, and sold 200,000 won of philopon to F on May 15, 2018 can be acknowledged.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the fact that the provision of philophones and the sale of philophones among the facts charged of this case is erroneous.
B. The lower court’s imprisonment with labor for a period of one year and additional collection) is too heavy or unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the prosecutor, the lower court found the prosecutor not guilty of the fact that each of the pertinent facts charged cannot be deemed as having been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that there was no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, and that there was no other evidence to support this, and that the sales of phiphones were not guilty.
1. On May 17, 2018, the Defendant provided 1,2 times after being arrested for the administration of phiphones, and the time of receipt and delivery of phiphones as “on May 11, 2018, 00:30” from the investigation of the police and the witness to the prosecution, the Defendant provided phiphones for the 1,2 times after being arrested for the administration of phiphones, and the time of receipt and delivery of phiphones. However, the Defendant reversed the statement as “on May 14, 2018,” from the investigation of the witness to the prosecution.
② Taking account of the fact that the photograph taken by the police from May 11, 2018 was found to have been stored in a mobile phone, the time of receipt was revealed as of May 11, 2018, and the Defendant and the date of the instant crime was confirmed in the prosecutor’s investigation, and the fact that the Defendant and the date of the instant crime were reversed, the F’s statement after the prosecutor’s office is not supported by objective data, but by the telephone content data.