logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.03.28 2018노1452
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, instituting a public prosecution on the date and time of the instant crime, “the first order of October 2017,” and “the first order of October 201 to the Defendant’s residence or the first order at the time and place of the crime,” constitutes a degree of hindering the Defendant’s exercise of right to defense due to unspecified

Therefore, since the indictment of this case cannot be deemed to have been properly specified in the facts charged, the lower court convicted the Defendant, despite having to render a judgment dismissing the prosecution, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. There is no fact that the Defendant administered the Meptampia at the time and place recorded in the facts charged.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty by recognizing the administration of mert cancer only based on the results of the mert cancer appraisal even though the voice judgment had been made as a result of the mert appraisal, is erroneous and erroneous in the judgment of the court below

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The facts charged as to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles must be stated clearly by specifying the date and time, place, and method of a crime. As such, the purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. As such, the facts charged is sufficient if the facts constituting the crime are stated to the extent that it can be recognizable from other facts by integrating these elements, and even if the date, time, place, method, etc. of a crime are not explicitly stated in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, and if the general indication is inevitable in light of the nature of the facts charged, and it does not interfere with the defendant’s exercise of right

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4671, Aug. 26, 2010). According to the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the prosecutor is the side from which the reaction of Metropia is generated.

arrow