logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.08.11 2016고단2348
마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No person may smoke or take in marijuana or marijuana seed coats, however, the Defendant smoked marijuana in a manner that reduces the tobacco initials of one cigarette in the street around the D apartment at the Gyeongnam-si, Kim Jong-si on May 10, 2016, by cutting off the tobacco initials of the tobacco and inserting it into the strings and cutting it into the strings.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of witness E;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Seizure records;

1. An investigation report (in relation to the notification of text messages as a result of close appraisal of the accused's base);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the accused's written self-defense appraisal and suspect maternity appraisal;

1. Selection of a fine and a fine under Article 61 (1) 4 (a) and subparagraph 10 (a) of Article 3 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. under the relevant Act on criminal facts;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The proviso to Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act;

1. The defense counsel's argument regarding the defense counsel's argument under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order asserts that the defendant's maternity appraisal results fall under illegally collected evidence and thus inadmissible evidence.

The defense counsel first argued about the defendant's voluntary confession, but at the second trial date, the confession was recognized as a voluntary confession.

However, according to the summary of the above evidence, any particular problem can not be found in the process of the arrest of the defendant in accordance with the lawfully issued warrant by the judge, and any particular defect can not be found in the process of submitting the defense and the hair thereafter. Thus, the above argument is rejected.

arrow