(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.05.30 2019노575 | 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 2019.05.30 2019노575

마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the prosecutor’s statement(s) and the content of the base station for sending mobile phone calls used by the Defendant, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged despite the fact that the Defendant could recognize the fact that the Defendant delivered oneg of phiphones to H around May 26, 2017.

B. The punishment imposed by the lower court against the Defendant (a year of imprisonment, an additional collection of KRW 100,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) The summary of this part of the facts charged is not a person handling narcotics.

At around 05:00 on May 26, 2017, the Defendant issued 1g of psychotropic drugs to H with a flosophopon at a small room located in Nananannam-gun G.

The court below held that the witness H’s statement to the purport that corresponds to this part of the facts charged is not a reasonable doubt, on the ground that it is difficult to believe this part of the facts charged, on the grounds that the witness’s statement to the effect that it is consistent with this part of the facts charged is difficult to view it as it is in light of the fact that each statement made by the investigative agency has been changed several times, the time and physical strength of the Daegu Dong-gu, as confirmed by the witness I’s statement, different from the time and body size of the defendant’s visit, and

Article 2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The Defendant shall have visited H two times on the date and time of the instant facts charged, according to the details of the base station of the mobile phone used by the Defendant for the judgment of the political party.”

In light of the above circumstances and H’s statement in the investigative agency and the contents of testimony at the court below, there is a doubt as to whether the Defendant did not deliver phiphones to H as stated in the facts charged.

However, the lower court’s witness I stated that “I received philopon from the Daegu Easterns” from H, but I stated that I was himself.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.09.14 2018노1163

-광주지방법원 2019.06.27 2019노942

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.29 2014노4294

-대전지방법원 2019.10.16 2019노1286

-광주지방법원 2019.06.04 2018고단5078