logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.07.27 2018노2690
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are merely arranging the trade of philophones by receiving philophones from his upper line upon request from E or F in this case, and do not sell philophones directly to E or F.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence sentenced by the prosecutor (four months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant could not have committed the instant crime, and thus, the reduction of self-denunciation should be made. However, according to the records, it is not deemed that the Defendant led to the confession of the crime, and even if the Defendant voluntarily surrendered, it is merely the fact that the court can voluntarily reduce the punishment. Thus, the lower court did not separately reduce the number of self-denunciation.

Even if there is no illegality (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4883, Sept. 22, 2006). However, the court below seems to have considered such circumstance as favorable sentencing factors in terms of self-denunciation.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) F upon the request of E in connection with the facts constituting the crime of paragraphs (1) and (2) of the original judgment; (ii) E directly and directly delivered cash to the Defendant with respect to the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (3) of the above judgment; (iii) the Defendant appears to have not specifically mentioned the source of his upper line or penphone when the Defendant supplied phiphones to E or F; and (iv) E or F does not seem to have been aware of the fact that N orO, the Defendant, at the time of purchase of phiphones, was the party to the sales of phiphones.

arrow