logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.10.31 2013노2665
유해화학물질관리법위반(환각물질흡입)등
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the part of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below regarding the case '2013 highest 2535' among the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below), the Defendant did not have administered a clickphone on August 201 and the first clickphone on September 2011. However, the court below found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of facts. 2) The punishment (an additional collection of KRW 1050,00,000) sentenced by the judgment of the

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, that is, the investigation into this part of the facts charged was initiated by informing the Defendant, the above L and I of the fact that the F had been administered with the Defendant’s request by L which is the Defendant’s punishment. However, the Defendant, at the time of undergoing the investigation by the prosecution, stated that the Defendant was the Defendant, not the above L, but the Defendant purchased the L, and led the Defendant to the effect that all the above L, F, and I made a statement consistent with the above statement. The public prosecution was instituted against the Defendant on the purchase and medication of the L, and the prosecution of this case on the purchase of the L, and on the other hand, the Defendant was not prosecuted on the purchase of the L, and on the other hand, the request for a summary order of KRW 7 million was made only with respect to the purchase of the L, which was submitted to the Incheon District Court for trial (However, the service of L, which was not made to the court of first instance, but with the Defendant's appearance as a witness.

arrow