logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.09.05 2019노1840
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was issued 0.03 g of philophones by C.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged that the defendant delivered 0.03 g of philophone to C is erroneous by misunderstanding the fact and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant alleged at the lower court that there was no fact that he provided C with 200,000 won or less, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that C’s statement on the date on which he provided with philophones was inconsistent, but the explanation of the changes in the statement was understood, and that the statement was reliable. 2) The Defendant asserted that there was no fact that the Defendant issued C with philophones when he received philophones.

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., ① from the investigation agency to the court below, the defendant consistently stated that C received 200,000 won or 0.03g of philophones from the defendant; ② The defendant denied the receipt of philophones from the investigation agency to the court below; ② the defendant stated that C was issued with C in the trial; ③ the defendant was punished six times as a crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (or Narcotics, etc.) and included the fact that philophones were given and received without compensation, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant delivered C with 0.03g of philophones at the date and place specified in the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below.

3) The Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit. (B) The lower court held that the Defendant had a history of having been punished several times for the same kind of crime, and each of the instant cases during the period of repeated crime.

arrow