beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. On February 2013, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence), among the facts charged in the instant case, of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence), and sentenced the Defendant guilty as to the violation of the remaining Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence). Since only the Defendant appealed the conviction part of the lower judgment and did not appeal by the prosecutor, the scope of the lower court’s judgment is limited to the said guilty portion
2. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months imprisonment, additional collection of 11.50,000 won) is too unreasonable.
3. Determination
A. Although the defendant made a confession of each of the crimes in this case under favorable circumstances, the defendant has committed a crime in favor of his mistake, the defendant has been sentenced twice to the same crime, the defendant has administered the phiphones, and not only the purchase and sale of the phiphones, but also the quality of the crime is not good, and the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, health conditions, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime are considered comprehensively, the scope of the recommended punishment according to the guidelines for sentencing for narcotics crimes in the Supreme Court (basic crime: the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by the purchase and sale of phiphones, the concurrent crime: the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., by the sale and purchase of phiphones, the recommended punishment for the basic crime: the imprisonment of two years or more, the imprisonment of two years or more, and the imprisonment of two years or more, or the majority punishment: the imprisonment of one year or more, and the sentence of three years or more) cannot be deemed to be unfair.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.
B. We examine ex officio the records of this case. The court below erred in the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., such as criminal facts in its judgment against the defendant.