logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.12.29 2015노2680
마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)
Text

Part concerning the 2-b, c, and 3 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be reversed.

Defendant 5,00. A fine for negligence of 5,000

Reasons

1. The sentence sentenced by the first instance court to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the first and second concurrent crimes: 4 years of suspended execution, additional collection 25,00 won in 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment, 2-B in 2 years and 3 years of suspended execution, 2-B in 2 years and 3, and 3: Imprisonment, 10 months of confiscation, additional collection 6,00 won in 6,00 won in 6,00 won in 6

2. Each of the crimes of this case in collusion with his accomplices imports about 10g of marijuana from abroad, smokes marijuana over three occasions, and carry about about 3.02g of marijuana in the first instance trial, although the Defendant stated that the amount of marijuana possessed by the Defendant is clearly indicated in the records that the Defendant is 3.02g of total weight (i.e., paper weight 7.58g - 4.56g of total weight, including paper weight 7.58g). Accordingly, according to the records, the Defendant’s correction is not separately confiscated since 3.02g of marijuana was entirely discarded after appraisal.

In light of the fact that the defendant possessed in possession and is not good in the nature of the crime, and that the defendant committed a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to smoking or possession of marijuana during the period of suspension of execution, it is inevitable to punish the defendant with severe penalty corresponding to the responsibility for the crime.

However, in full view of all the circumstances such as the defendant's age, occupation, family relation, motive, means and method of the crime, result and circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to see that the first instance court's punishment of the crime of the first instance is too unfair because the defendant's punishment of the crime of the second, the second, second, second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, and the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second, the second,

arrow