beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion against Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant A merely explained to Defendant B, who explained the method of medication of Mesptopule (hereinafter “Mespopon”), and did not sell phipopon to Defendant B, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the case 2016 upper group 2066 decision of the lower court.
Even if Defendant A had a material that was called philopon to Defendant B
Even if this does not constitute “psychotropic drugs” under Article 4(1)1 of the Narcotics Control Act.
2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts (as indicated in the lower judgment, 2016 order 2219 (b) part 2-B) Defendant B received KRW 30 million from the victim J on October 14, 2015, and remitted KRW 30 million to theO on the same day. Thus, Defendant B did not deceiving the victim.
In addition, Defendant B had a claim to return KRW 30 million to the victim, so there was no intention to acquire it.
2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
(c)
(1) The lower court found Defendant A not guilty of this part of the facts charged, despite the fact that Defendant A administered a philophone dose on May 7, 2016, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts.
B) Although Defendant B’s fraud with Defendant B’s victim F, even if Defendant B borrowed money from the victim F, it would be repaid within 2 months in the absence of the intent or ability to repay the money, and the fact that Defendant B conspireded with KRW 70 million and could be recognized as the intent to defraud the victim, the lower court acquitted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
2) Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Determination of Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is made.