logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.02.07 2019노3965
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor’s sentence (one hundred months of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The Defendant did not sell phiphones to B as stated in the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. (1) In determining the credibility of a statement made by a victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court of relevant legal principles, as well as whether the content of the statement itself conforms to the rationality, logic, morality, or rule of experience, physical evidence, or third party’s statement in the presence of a judge, as well as whether the statement made in the witness examination protocol, including the appearance or attitude of a witness who is in the open court after taking an oath before a judge, and the appearance of a witness who is in the witness’s statement, is divided into several circumstances that make it difficult for him/her to record, shall be assessed as to the credibility of the statement, and if the statement made by the witness, including the victim, conforms to the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there are any other reliable materials that can be objectively deemed to lack credibility by considering the victim’s and other witnesses’ statement as a substitute and consistent with the facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012).

(2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court based on the aforementioned legal doctrine on March 14, 2008 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10728, Mar. 14, 2008). (2), comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances, B’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case is reliable, and comprehensively taking account of the statements and remaining evidence of the aforementioned B, the fact that the Defendant sold

(1) B is an objection from an investigative agency to the court of original judgment.

arrow