beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the forfeiture shall be reversed.
A copy of a color colored with seized c.57 g. philophones.
Reasons
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Where any seized article is not present at the time of a judgment ex officio (as to the part of confiscation), or seized article has already been destroyed pursuant to Articles 130(2) and (3) and 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court may not pronounce the confiscation of such article.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6982 Decided January 28, 2010, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4182 Decided June 14, 2012, etc.) In light of the record, the entire part of a white can not be known during the investigation into the following: (i) one philophone-phone 0.03g from among one philogram-type (Evidence No. 1) containing 3.60g of the seized philophone 3.60g; (ii) one clogram-type (Evidence No. 2) containing 0.03g of the rophone-phone 0.11g of the philogram-phone 0.24m of the philophone (Evidence No. 4); and (iii) one clogram-type 14 of the dilution-type 24m of the dilution with the dilution 0.24m of the dilution with the dilution 10.24m.
Nevertheless, the lower court, without considering the part disposed of otherwise, confiscated all of the disposable clocks containing 3.60g of the seized philopon (Evidence No. 1), one white merl containing 0.03g of the hemp (Evidence No. 2), one plastic blopon (Evidence No. 4), one plastic blopon containing 0.11g of the philopon, and one disposable copon containing 0.24 mopon containing 0.24 mopon (Evidence No. 5).
Such measures by the court below are erroneous in the misunderstanding of the legal principles on confiscation as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the part of the judgment below on confiscation cannot be maintained.
B. It is reasonable to respect the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing.
Supreme Court Decision 200