logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.04.17 2014노63
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

(e).

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the statement of C with no credibility, although the defendant did not sell or purchase a philopon to C, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if not, the lower court’s sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment on misunderstanding of Facts

A. On August 22, 2012, at around 20:00, the Defendant: (a) received a request from C to seek a psychotropic drug psychotropic-related metroptye (hereinafter “copon”); (b) on the same day, around 21:30, approximately 10 grams of copon from C; and (c) received KRW 2.1 million of the purchase price brought by C at the same place after diving.

Accordingly, the Defendant sold written phone to C.

B. While the Defendant consistently administered philophones from an investigative agency to a trial, the Defendant denied this part of the crime, which did not have been sold.

There is a statement made by C and K at an investigative agency and a statement made by the defendant, C and K on the date and time stated in the facts charged, which correspond to the facts charged that the defendant sold phiphones.

On September 22, 2012, the Defendant and C, and K had a telephone conversation on several occasions between September 22, 2012, and some of them appear to be close to the place indicated in the instant facts charged.

However, the fact that the defendant and C have conversationsd or met on the date stated in the facts charged cannot be viewed as selling phiphones by the defendant.

On the other hand, K's statement purported that it was from C, and eventually, it is only a statement in the investigation agency of C with direct evidence to acknowledge this facts charged.

C also acknowledges the purchase of phiphones from the defendant in his criminal trial and guilty.

arrow