logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.09.20 2018노957
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case even though the defendant misunderstanding the fact that he arranged the trade of phiphones, but the 200,000 won paid to E is not the consideration of mediation, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the fact.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (4 months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant: (a) led to the confession of the facts charged in this case in the court of original instance; (b) was dissatisfied with the purport of the mistake of facts; (c) the Defendant’s confession made in the court of first instance is not different from the legal statement in the appellate court; and (d) the admissibility or credibility of the confession is doubtful.

In determining the credibility of a confession, the credibility of a confession should be determined in consideration of whether the contents of the confession’s statement are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason of the confession, what is the motive or reason of the confession, and what is the background leading up to the confessions, and whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confessions among other evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1994, Jun. 26, 2008; 2010Do2556, Apr. 29, 2010). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below are as follows. In other words, the Defendant provided F with a penphone by communicating E with the defective F, and the Defendant received KRW 200,000 from E in return for arranging the trade of the penphones at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation and the court below at the time of the prosecution’s investigation.

The statement, E also purchased phiphones at an investigative agency, and paid 20,000 won to the defendant not by taking flicks but by changing flicks.

I stated that E contains some intent to pay money by personal-friendly relationship.

Even if the above money is paid in consideration of good offices.

arrow