logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.10.24 2019노1283
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that: (a) the amount of forged drugs sold or kept by the Defendant is considerably significant; (b) the profits acquired in return for the instant crime are not significant; and (c) the degree of participation in the instant crime is not easy, the nature of the crime and the criminal administration are not provided for.

However, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime, which was partially denied in the lower court’s trial due to the first instance without criminal records; (b) and (c) the Defendant’s perceptions of the mistake in depth; and (d) the Defendant’s perceptions of the Defendant’s wife against the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, family environment, motive, means, and consequences of the instant crime; and (c) and (d) all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the argument in the instant case, the Defendant’s punishment should be suspended rather than is isolated from society, and thus, it is necessary to give the opportunity

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is with merit, and it is again decided as follows.

[C] The facts constituting an offense and summary of evidence recognized by the court and the gist of evidence are identical to the facts in the judgment below, except where the court below's partial statement "1.1. defendant's oral statement" in the first instance judgment as "1.1. defendant's oral statement" in the summary of evidence, and thus, it is identical to the corresponding columns in the judgment below. Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 3

Application of Statutes

1. Article 61(1)5, Article 4(1)1, subparagraph 3 (d) (the point of receipt and possession ofGHB) of Article 2 and Article 61(1)5, Article 4(1)1, and Article 2 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and Articles 61(1)1 and 2 of the Narcotics, etc. Act concerning criminal facts;

arrow