logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.10.02 2014노2371
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to C’s statement of the grounds for appeal and response to a request for appraisal on Defendant’s hair, etc., the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though it can be acknowledged that the Defendant administered a philopon as stated in the facts charged.

2. The lower court determined as follows: (a) Each statement at C’s investigative agency and the lower court court’s court’s court’s court’s trial is the following: (b) it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant had administered a philopon at the time on the basis of such statement alone: (a) the Defendant’s testimony at the time was “scoponing the philopon,” stating that “The Defendant appeared to have taken the philopon training from the Defendant’s mother taken on July 25, 2013,” and the content and content of the “scoponing the philopon training from the Defendant’s mother taken on June 25, 2013” are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant administered the philopon on the philopon on the said philopon on the ground that there was no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

In addition to the above circumstances determined by the court below, ① according to the response to the defendant’s request for appraisal of the defendant’s hair, the response was made in the section from the end of 1 cm to the end of the defendant’s mother to the end of the end of one month on average, and even if the collection date in the case of the defendant was the most unfavorable to the defendant on July 25, 2013, the period of administration of the defendant does not coincide only with the police officer on June 25, 2013, which is the date indicated in the facts charged, before June 2013. ② The police officer stated that the vehicle for which the defendant administered the penphones is the motor vehicle, and made a clear statement from the police officer to its number, and was investigated by the prosecutor.

arrow