beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on factual misunderstanding and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, nor did the Defendant sold the Macarul manufactured by using the Ma
B. The lower court’s sentence (an amount of KRW 700,000) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the court below lawfully investigated and adopted the evidence [in the case of a written statement, the defendant prepared as the investigative agency did, and made the defendant sign the written statement with his/her own view to gambling, rashness, and experience, and in the case of the suspect interrogation protocol, he/she did not sell goods using the Mara color.
Although the above statement was made, it is written differently from its own statement, and it is argued to the effect that the admissibility of evidence is denied.
However, the defendant already expressed his/her consent to the above evidence at the second trial of the court below. Since the declaration of consent to evidence under Article 318 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not revoked or withdrawn after the examination of evidence is completed, the consent cannot be revoked at the second trial of the court of first instance. On the other hand, even if the declaration of consent to evidence is revoked or withdrawn after the examination of evidence is completed, the evidence already acquired before revocation or withdrawal shall not be lost (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4428, Apr. 28, 2005, etc.). Accordingly, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, since all of the above evidence are proved by the evidence duly examined by the court below, it shall be maintained in the trial of the court below, and the defendant's declaration of consent to evidence under Article 318 of the Criminal Procedure Act can be sufficiently recognized as having been made by using the so-called Maca, which is a food added object without an import declaration under the Special Act on Food Safety Control, etc.
1) The Defendant was exposed on the date of detection.