(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.10.12 2017노1835 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.10.12 2017노1835

마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a year of imprisonment, and an additional collection of KRW 100,00) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) 1) misunderstanding of facts (Article 1-1(a) of the lower judgment’s holding that the Defendant did not sell a phiphone to A.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, additional collection KRW 200,00) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C(unfair sentencing) The sentence (the imprisonment of 4 months, additional collection of 200,000 won) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged (the part of the judgment below No. 1-A) at around 17:30 on August 17, 2016, at H’s adjacent toilets located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu G, A delivered KRW 100,00 of the purchase price of phiphones to the Defendant, and the Defendant dried a disposable injection device containing approximately 0.1g of phiphones to A.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the first investigative agency identified A as the Defendant; (b) the prosecutor’s office from the prosecution to the court below stated the seller as the Defendant; (c) the monetary content between A and the Defendant also conforms to A; and (c) the police officer stated that A is not the Defendant; and (d) the details of the upper line merely provide that “it is impossible to speak the upper line or purchase the upper line via the Internet,” and thus, it does not appear to have high credibility by itself; and (d) the Defendant recognized the fact of phiphones upon detection of phiphones, and recognized the fact of phiphones upon detection of phiphones; and there was no telephone call from A or no mobile phone number of A.

There has been repeated statements contrary to objective facts, such as that it is difficult for the defendant to believe as it is, and 5.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2018.11.09 2018노1492

-부산지방법원 2018.08.31 2018노1825

-부산지방법원 2017.04.27 2017노788

-수원지방법원 2017.09.29 2017노5006

-서울북부지방법원 2017.05.25 2017노389