logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.09.10 2020노932
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s imprisonment (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not have conspired with D, A, etc. to import the instant penphones in advance, and the Defendant was aware of the fact at the time of receipt of the mail containing the instant penphones. Even if the intention of smuggling is recognized, the Defendant is merely a passive part in the crime committed in D, and thus constitutes an aiding and abetting offender. 2) The lower court’s judgment’s allegation of unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The essence of the joint principal offender’s argument of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is deemed to be functional control by division of roles. As such, the joint principal offender is in a functional control by the joint principal offender, while there is no functional control by the joint principal offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11949, Jan. 27, 201). Examining the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant” in this paragraph) entered the Republic of Korea with the recognition of the fact that the goods he/she would receive and have taken part in the crime of this case while entering the Republic of Korea with the recognition of the fact that the goods he/she would receive, and took part in the crime of this case by receiving the instant phone, it is reasonable to deem that there was a functional control over the import of the instant phone.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① 피고인은 2019. 10.경 D이 페이스북에 올린 “상아가루, 1건당 2,000~3,000링깃”이라는 광고를 보고 D에게 위챗으로 연락하면서, D에게 “혹시 마약 같은 물건을 받는 것 아니냐”고 물어보았다.

The Defendant, even at the end of November 2019, re-enters D with “if he or she treats it,”

arrow