beta
Text
All the judgment below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for four years and for three years, respectively.
In this case.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendants did not know that the Defendants were aware of the existence of a psychotropic drug substance in the exempted area.
B. The each sentence (Defendant A: 5 years of imprisonment and Defendant B: 4 years of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the summary of the part concerning violation of the Narcotics Control Act (fence) among the instant facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendants, even though not the narcotics handler, offered to D a stroke “stroke” exempt from water containing the stroke m, which is a local mental medicine, to drink; (b) around August 28, 2015, Defendant B, at H located in Seoul Jung-gu G around August 15:05, 2015, stroke 2 stroke stroke stroke, and used the dromatic medicine by mixing D with the dromatic stroke 2.
2) In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the Defendants, even though they were not aware of the accurate ingredients of the psychotropic drugs contained in the “stroke stroke” exempted from water, did not recognize that the stroke drugs or substances are included in “stroke stroke stroke” and are likely to cause physical or mental dependence when they are abused or abused.
The decision was determined.
① At the time of the commission of the crime, the Defendants knew that, in order to purchase “stroke strokes”, they should be prescribed by the doctor.
② A doctor F explained Defendant B about the dependence and habitability of the “stroke strokes” by prescribing the “stroke strokes”.
③ Defendant B’s purpose of having prescribed “strokes” was only to use the robbery solely.
3) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, it is reasonable to recognize that the Defendants were included in the exemption at the time of using the exemption.