beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant made a statement at an investigative agency that he/she received 0.0g of February 4, 2019 from D, and 0.8g of March 10, 2019, but the above statement was made by drilling, and it is anticipated that the amount actually received would be less than 0.3-0.4g. (2) The Defendant administered 0.07g of March 26, 2019, after he/she received a written phone from D, and administered 0.1g of the said written phone on March 31, 2019, respectively. On March 27, 2019, the Defendant took 0.1g of the said written phone, and took place 0.3g of the said written phone at the time of arrest on April 5, 2019.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court on February 4, 2019 and March 10, 2019, as follows: ① the Defendant was granted from the investigative agency on February 4, 2019 the philoon 2.0g from D, March 10, 2019, and stated that the remainder was changed after the partial medication (the investigative record No. 386 pages, 396 pages), ② The Justice means that the Defendant was written from the Defendant on March 12, 2019, and “1.5” (the bloon 1.5).
A) The fact that the Defendant was delivered and stated that he was administered four times (No. 143-144 of the Investigation Record), and that he stated that the Defendant was aware that he was seeking phiphones from D (No. 36 of the Investigation Record), ④ D also states that he was aware that he was in fact about the Defendant on February 4, 2019 and March 10, 2019 (No. 445 of the Investigation Record), ⑤ D is prosecuted for delivering phiphones free of charge to M on January 29, 2019 (in light of the trial record No. 109 of the trial record), it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s statement that was led to a confession made by the investigative agency as stated in the facts charged is true.
Therefore, the defendant's two philophones stated in this part of the facts charged.