beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. It is a practice that does not enter the Information Institute in the course of investigating narcotics crimes by misunderstanding the legal principles and only the other party is the same.
Accordingly, the prosecutor entered the defendant even though the defendant was a party who reported 15 persons who committed drug crimes, and indicted the case at the order of 1915 Godan 2017 and the order of 2807 Godan 2017 as stated in the decision of the court below. Thus, the prosecution for each of the above cases constitutes abuse of public prosecution rights.
B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and eight months of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 6280,00) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The prosecutor’s judgment on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine clearly deviates from the discretion of prosecution by arbitrarily exercising the right of prosecution and giving substantial disadvantages to the defendant.
In light of the records, each of the crimes of the 2017 Highest 1915 Highest 1915 Supreme Court decisions of the court below is recognized by reporting to an investigation agency on January 3, 2017, and thus, the validity of the indictment can be denied by deeming the abuse of the authority to institute a public prosecution. In this context, the arbitrary act of the authority to institute a public prosecution is insufficient merely by negligence in the course of performing official duties (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do577, Dec. 10, 1999). Each of the crimes of the 2017 Highest 1915 Highest 191 Supreme Court decisions of the court below is recognized by reporting to the investigation agency on January 10, 2017 (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da2807, Jan. 10, 2017). Each of the crimes of the 2017 Highest 207 High Court decisions of the court below is a non-prosecution disposition by a prosecutor or an investigation agency on March 15, 2015.
There is no evidence to see.
Therefore, the defendant's misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.
B. Sentencing;