(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.07.08 2016노977

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.07.08 2016노977

마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no evidence supporting the Defendant’s confession on a different premise, on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient, even though there was sufficient evidence to reinforce the Defendant’s confession, in order of July 2015 and at the end of August 2015, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of suspended execution, 40 hours of probation observation and pharmacologic treatment in August, and 200 of additional collection 20,000 won) is excessively unafford and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On July 2015, the Defendant administered the philophones possessed by the person “I” at H’s house near Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, by means of heating the philophones as soon as possible and smoking as possible. On August 8, 2015, the Defendant administered the philophones possessed by H in the same place at around 14:00 at the same time.

2) The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant’s statement at the investigative agency and the lower court’s court’s court’s trial on the following grounds: (a) when the confession of the Defendant was the only evidence unfavorable to the Defendant, the Defendant could not be admitted as evidence of guilt (Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act); and (b) as evidence consistent with each of the above facts charged, the Defendant’s statement at each time and place specified in the facts charged was flexible; and (c) there was no evidence to reinforce

3) In a case where the confession of a defendant is the only evidence against him/her, the confession shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt. Thus, in a case where the defendant was found guilty on the basis of his/her confession without any evidence of reinforcement, the judgment in itself is the result of the

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.05.10 2015노7645

-대구지방법원 2017.10.27 2017노3352

-춘천지방법원 2017.11.16 2017노601

-대구지방법원 2016.07.13 2015노2477

-인천지방법원 2017.09.19 2017노1833