beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts (related to paragraph (1) of the original facts in the judgment) only received 200,000 won and 200,000 won and 0.1g of Meteteteteteph (hereinafter referred to as “diphone”) as repayment of 4.50,000 won that the Defendant lent to E, and the Defendant purchased from F due to E’s request and delivered 0.4gg of Metephtephs to E and did not receive the above Metephtephs, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the Defendant’s false confession and testimony of E without credibility made by the investigative agency, and erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
(2) When taking into account the various circumstances on the accused of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection KRW 300,000) is too heavy.
B. In light of the content and nature of the instant crime committed by the prosecutor, and the criminal records of the Defendant, the lower court’s punishment is too minor.
2. Determination
A. The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts: (i) in the prosecutor’s office and the lower court’s court, E provided money to the Defendant by demanding the Defendant to rescue Mepters; and (ii) thereafter, the Defendant received Mepters from Mepters and the Defendant’s Mepters located in a one-time-time-time-use vehicle within the Defendant’s Mep vehicles; and (iii) stated that the E’s statement is clearly consistent with the objective data and the Defendant’s cell phone call on September 19, 2012, the Defendant’s act on the day of the instant case (the Defendant was 30,00 won and 4.5 times a half-time-time call on September 20, 2012; (iv) the Defendant was parked on the road from Jindo to 01:0 on September 20, 201, and returned to the Defendant’s cell phone, which is an objective data and the details of credibility of the Defendant’s cell call.