beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. On December 28, 2016, the reasoning of the appeal submitted by the Defendant (unfair sentencing) and the reasoning of the appeal submitted by the defense counsel on January 10, 2017, the Defendant asserted that, with respect to the sale of philophones, the Defendant only delivered philophones upon F’s request and did not sell philophones in collusion with F, but explicitly withdrawn the above assertion on the first trial date ( February 27, 2017).
The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 7,050,00) is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and against his mistake, and there is no record of punishment with respect to the narcotics prior to the instant case, and the mere degree of simple participation with F’s instructions in relation to the instant crime of selling phiphones, and the fact that the Defendant cooperates in the investigation, such as providing information on F, an accomplice, etc., are favorable to the Defendant.
However, the crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant has purchased and administered phiphones several times in collusion with the F and sold them in collusion with the F, and that the amount and frequency of the phiphones purchased by the defendant, the number of times of the purchase and the number of administered phiphones is considerable, and the crime related to phiphones seems to have a high dependence on phiphones, and that the crime of phiphones is highly likely to cause harm to the individuals concerned and society as well as society through its toxicity, and that the defendant purchased and administered phiphones several times without being aware of the fact that he was discovered by the investigation agency while selling phiphones in collusion with the F and was investigated.
On the other hand, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.
In this regard, Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 is delivered to the collegiate body.