logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
서울고등법원 2015.12.03 2015노2792
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

No. 3 through 16 of seized evidence.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the first instance court (at least three years of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In fact-finding Defendant made a confession on December 22, 2014 to H of the fact that he/she made up approximately two g of phiphones free of charge, and even if he/she could obtain sufficient reinforcement evidence, the first instance court did not sufficiently conduct a hearing and rendered a verdict not guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts in the judgment of the first instance court, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of the first instance court of unfair sentencing sentenced to

2. Determination

A. On December 22, 2014, at around 20:00, the Defendant provided approximately 2g of the 1110 gramphones imported on December 22, 2014, from the 504 guest room “Grotour” located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, and from December 22, 2014, from the 16:00 rotophones imported on December 16, 2014 to H free of charge.

B. The first instance court rendered a judgment not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that each statement in the investigation agency and the first instance court did not appear and there is no evidence to reinforce it, to the effect that the evidence corresponding to this part of the facts charged against the Defendant is that “the time and place indicated in the above facts charged would bring about about about about about about about about about 2 g of approximately 110 g of phiphones imported by H.”

C. 1) The admissibility of confessions is sufficient if it is sufficient to recognize that confessions are true, not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not sufficient, and if it is possible to recognize that confessions are true, it can be indirect evidence, not direct evidence, or circumstantial evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1148, Jul. 25, 1995; 2008Do6045, Sept. 25, 2008). 2) According to the records, the prosecutor administered 0.2g of Rophonephonephones, which are delivered without compensation from the Defendant on December 28, 2014, as evidence of this part of the facts charged at the trial.

‘H was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months for criminal facts such as crime.

arrow