logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017. 6. 22. 선고 2017노477 판결
[마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)][미간행]
Escopics

Defendant

Appellant. An appellant

Defendant

Prosecutor

He/she shall file prosecutions, Lee Jong-ho (Trial)

Defense Counsel

Attorneys Kim Do-hee et al.

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016 Height7312 Decided January 19, 2017

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The sentence of the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the grounds for appeal

In light of the distribution structure and dissemination route of philophones and the influence of the sales of philophones, the Defendant handled the philophones without many number of times, and the Defendant went to sell the 10 grams unit. In light of the distribution structure of philophones and the influence of philophones, it is highly necessary to impose more severe punishment than that of philophones import or retail. The Defendant has been punished 13 times from 1998 to 11 times, even though he was sentenced to the punishment of philophones, the Defendant repeated the crime of selling philophones within a short time after release, and the instant case was also low during the repeated period of repeated crime due to the same crime, and the Defendant cooperates with the customs investigation by the Defendant on March 31, 2017. However, the Defendant’s assertion that it is difficult to obtain the aforementioned information within the reasonable scope of the Defendant’s respective conditions of the investigation and investigation, including the following circumstances.

(b) partial ex officio rectification in the application of legislation;

Article 60 subparag. 3, which is the second sentence following the decision of the court below, shall be deemed to be an obvious clerical error in Article 60(3) in the application of the relevant laws and regulations in the judgment of the court below, and shall be corrected ex officio as “Article 60(3).”

3. Conclusion

Since the appeal by the defendant is groundless, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Hun-Ba (Presiding Judge)

arrow