Defendant

Both parties

Maximum Chang-gu Residents

Attorney Seo Han-chul (National Assembly Line)

Busan District Court Decision 2010 Godan1381 Decided November 5, 2010

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant

Although there was no testimony of false facts contrary to memory, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts, and even if not, the court below's punishment (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentence of the court below is too unjustifiable.

2. Determination

A. Points of mistake of facts

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the facts charged in this case can be fully recognized. The defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. The point of unfair sentencing

Considering the fact that the defendant denies the crime until the end and is not divided, the defendant should be punished strictly. However, due to the fact that the defendant requested the non-indicted 1 to purchase the Mestopian by the request from the non-indicted 1, and the defendant requested the non-indicted 2 to purchase the Mestopian, the non-indicted 1, and the non-indicted 2 became final and conclusive by being convicted of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., the result of the disturbance of the judicial function caused by the defendant's perjury has not been emphasized. In addition, considering the various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, the sentencing of the court below seems to be appropriate, and it is not recognized that the defendant is too weak or unreasonable. The prosecutor and

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeal filed by the defendant and

Judges Lee Ho-gu (Presiding Judge)