logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.06 2018고단6773
마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. A person who smokes marijuana is prohibited from smoking marijuana, however, the Defendant smoked marijuana in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment C heading toilets at around 01:20 on September 4, 2018, in such a way as to reduce the tobacco plant of the Defendant’s residence, to infusing the smoke plant of one cigarette, and to infusing the smoke that has occurred by inserting it into a racker.

2. On September 4, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around September 4, 2018, kept approximately 0.94g of marijuana contained in a steel box in a toilet at the residence of the said Defendant, even though he/she is not a handler of narcotics; and (b) around September 4, 2018, the Defendant kept the same.

Accordingly, the Defendant possessed approximately 0.94g of hemp.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each protocol of seizure;

1. Application of each request for appraisal-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. The relevant Article of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, etc., and Articles 61 (1) 4 (a) and 3 subparagraph 10 (a) (the point of smoking marijuana) of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, etc., and Articles 61 (1) 6 and 4 (1) 2 (the marijuana) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., concerning criminal facts;

possession), each choice of imprisonment

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Protective observation and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under the proviso to Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is highly likely to be subject to criticism in that the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he had the same history four times.

However, on the other hand, under the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant is against the crime, that the defendant is suffering from cerebral disease, that her wife suffers from suffering from mental illness, the defendant has lost her self-control power, and that the crime of this case has long been kept in custody of marijuana collected from forests and fields for a long time, and where the defendant is sentenced to punishment, family members are faced with considerable economic difficulties.

arrow