logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.10.19 2018노4509
화학물질관리법위반(환각물질흡입)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for appeal (one year and four months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and where the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable conditions

The circumstances asserted by the defendant on the grounds of appeal are considered in the sentencing process of the court below.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below in the first instance court.

Even if there is a need for the State to provide maximum support to the public to prevent or treat hallucinogenic substances, it is a matter different from the criminal responsibility, which is a matter of different level from that of the criminal liability. As such, the criminal liability of the Defendant cannot be deemed to be reduced as a result of the Defendant’s scambling of hallucinogenic substances, and the Defendant’s scambling of hallucinogenic substances may result in unreasonable consequences in relation to other criminals, as well as the mitigation of the Defendant’s scambling of the similar case’s shape may result in unreasonable consequences in relation to other criminals. In full view of the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too excessive to the reasonable scope

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow