(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.03.31 2016노124 | 리걸엔진

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) 창원지방법원 2016.03.31 2016노124

마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, on April 17, 2015, was a director at H on the following day: (a) the Defendant, as indicated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, issued a cryptopy (one philophone; hereinafter referred to as “philophone”) to D at the address of the first police officer on April 2015; and (b) there was no fact that he administered a crypphone.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts constituting the crimes Nos. 1 and 2 in the judgment of the court below is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 500,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, namely, D had been administered at an investigative agency upon delivery of phiphones from the Defendant on the early April 2015 and around June 20, 2015, and the Defendant directly observed the administration on its job:

In full view of the following facts: (a) the statement made by the investigative agency on the process of medication, method of medication, etc. is specific and consistent; (b) the result of the appraisal of narcotics from the Defendant’s hair taken around October 30, 2015 at the investigative agency on the Defendant’s hair, which was found to have been detected in the cut hair from approximately 4 cm to the end of 7 cm, the end of which is the end of 1 cm; and (c) the Defendant’s statement made to the police officer on April 2015, which was about 6-7 months prior to the time of hair extraction, was highly likely to have been administered at the beginning of April 2015; and (d) the Defendant also made a statement to the effect that this part of the facts charged was admitted, and thus it is difficult to believe the Defendant’s statement as it is, as stated in the lower judgment, to deliver the Defendant’s statement to the above police officer on April 1, 2015.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2018.11.15 2018노3377

-부산지방법원 2018.09.05 2018고단2073

-대구지방법원 2016.09.28 2016노768

-의정부지방법원 2018.08.13 2018노1501

-서울북부지방법원 2016.04.22 2015노2208