logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2014.06.12 2014도4501
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court of final appeal is a ex post facto review of the decision of the appellate court, which is not subject to a review by the appellate court. As such, the grounds for final appeal are not alleged in the appellate court as the grounds for final appeal, or are not subject to a review by the appellate court ex officio.

According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and argued on the vessel investigation that was rejected by the court of first instance on the part of the facts charged in this case as the grounds for appeal, and withdrawn such assertion on the second trial of the court of second instance, and did not consider it as the object of judgment ex officio.

Therefore, the ground of appeal that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the investigation of naval vessels is with respect to the grounds that are not subject to the appellate court’s judgment, and thus, cannot be a legitimate ground

In addition, even when examining the grounds for appeal in light of the legal principles as to naval investigation and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s judgment convicting of the part concerning the importation of phiphones among the facts charged in the instant case did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to naval investigation,

On July 12, 2007, the recognition of criminal facts should have been proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2339, Jul. 12, 2007). However, the selection of evidence and the probative value of evidence, which are based on the premise of fact finding, belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The ground of appeal disputing the fact-finding by the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination of evidence selection and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

The judgment below

The evidence duly admitted.

arrow