logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.07.06 2018노1305
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not contain any fact that the Defendant sold philophones to F (misunderstanding of fact). The sentence (one year and two months of imprisonment, additional collection KRW 700,000) pronounced by the lower court is too large and thus is unfair (unfair in sentencing).2.

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of fact, it is recognized that the defendant, upon the F's request, transferred F with the drum card box containing the drum card through a taxi engineer. When distinguishing between the "seller" and the "seller" in the dial phone transaction, it is important for the buyer to recognize who was the seller as the seller. However, the F purchased dialphones by fraud from the defendant, which is recognized as having been transferred with the dial card box containing the dial phone from the taxi engineer sent by the defendant, and the F cannot be seen as having any reason to gather the defendant while taking charge of the punishment of the dialphones and perjurys, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant sold the dial phone with the dial phone as stated in the judgment below.

The defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. The Defendant recognized all other crimes except the parts of philophone sales, and opposed to the determination of unfair sentencing.

In the case of joint conflict, other accomplices have agreed to or deposited a reasonable amount with the victim.

There shall be no record of punishment exceeding the suspension of the execution of imprisonment.

The quantity of administered philophones is relatively small.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

Defendant has been punished for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act.

Each of the crimes of this case is that the defendant sold, possessed, mephonephones, administered, or flaged with fraud, and the quality of the crime is not weak.

In particular, the crime of selling phiphones is more likely to be criticized to spread phiphones.

arrow