logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.02.06 2013노3631
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The facts charged in this part of the facts charged are not clearly specified in the time and method of the administration of oponon, and thus infringing Defendant’s right to defense, and thus, this part of the prosecution should be dismissed. However, the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which convicted Defendant of the charges. 2) The Defendant’s response to training of campics (hereinafter “oponon”) as a result of the Defendant’s appraisal on the cam and hair, was merely due to the fact that she included cam in the camcopon in the camcopon (hereinafter “copon”), and even though the Defendant did not directly administer copon, the lower court convicted Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The facts charged as to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles must be stated clearly by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The purport of the law demanding the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense. As such, the facts charged are sufficient if the facts constituting the crime are stated to the extent that it is recognizable from other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements, and even if the date, place, method, etc. of a crime are not specifically stated in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, in light of the nature of the crime charged, and if the general indication is inevitable, and it does not interfere with the defendant’s exercise of

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do2939, Oct. 11, 2002; 2008Do4854, Jul. 24, 2008). According to the records, the prosecutor obtained a penphone from N around 05:30, Jul. 8, 2013.

arrow