(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.07.11 2013노4276 | 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) 부산지방법원 2014.07.11 2013노4276

마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the judgment of the lower court rendered on April 12, 2013, the Defendant purchased and sold Metropopa (hereinafter referred to as “copulon”), which is a psychotropic drug, in the direction from the bottom of the one-time popter to the fourth of snow, after receiving KRW 200,000 from C in the vicinity of the amrop station in Busan Dongdong-dong, Busan, on April 12, 2013, to the extent that the Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

As to the judgment of the court below, the court below found all of the facts charged of this case guilty by taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

Defendant

In addition, the evidence of the facts charged that the defendant alleged by the defense counsel sold the phiphones is the only statement to C’s investigative agency. C is erroneous in the misapprehension of the statement continuously in response to the circumstances in which the defendant purchased the phiphones each time when the records of telephone conversations inconsistent with his/her own statement are recorded, and it is stated that the defendant and the defendant sold the phiphones and sold the 27 seconds at the beginning. However, it is physically impossible to determine the time and place of the phiphones trading, the quantity of the phiphones, and the purchase price, etc. thereof at the beginning of 27 seconds. At that time, C is not reliable in the statement of C on the grounds that the defendant did not lend money. In light of the circumstances that the defendant did not have any credibility in the statement of C, and thus, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment by

(The defendant and his defense counsel have the same assertion in submitting the statement of grounds for appeal after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal has expired. Thus, ex officio determination is examined. There are three arguments: C's trial and the court below's trial; C's oral statement in the prosecution; C's statement in the prosecutor's office; C's communication data, and telephone calls.

C Each statement is consistent with the statements in the prosecution and the court as follows:

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.03.11 2015고합597

-부산지방법원 2013.12.05 2013고단5901

-의정부지방법원 2017.05.26 2017고단1512

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.11.29 2017고단2520

-서울서부지방법원 2016.10.18 2016고단1967