logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.07.12 2018노280
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case by reliance on the testimony of E without credibility, although the Defendant did not have administered or used philophones together with E.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

2. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged of the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) E made a statement to the effect that it conforms to the facts charged consistently from the investigative agency to the contrary; (b) E does not seem to have any special circumstance to make a false statement; (c) the Defendant’s hair was detected from the her hair, and the Defendant himself recognized the fact that E was interviewed at each date and place specified in the facts charged.

3. Determination on whether a deliberation was made

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that, in the court of the court below, E made a statement to the effect that, “as he was hospitalized in a mental hospital at the time of undergoing a police investigation, he was subject to pharmacologic treatment,” and “specific circumstances at the time of committing a crime are not well memory at present,” there is no credibility in the part corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case among the statements made in the investigative agency and the court of the court below, and that E is highly likely to have made a statement by recognizing that he was aware of the administration of phiphones together with H with the Defendant.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, namely, ① is true that E administered narcotics at each time and place specified in the facts charged and administered them at the Defendant’s aid at each time and place.

“The authenticity of each of the facts charged in this case is clearly stated, and ② E is somewhat somewhat somewhat in the original court’s court.

arrow