logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.03.27 2019노2623
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(향정)등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) 1) misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A) Defendant A’s 4 million won with Defendant B and MDMA (the name “EXT” and “EXT” hereinafter).

(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, Defendant A, as well as Defendant B, C, and C, did not know of the total size of X posters and the order of Kenya as ordered by Defendant B and C, there was no public offering of import such as Defendant B, C, and EX 1,045 (i.e., 1,125 - 80) (i.e., 1,125 - - 80), EXP 7.76 g, and Kenya 31.05 g. (ii) the price of XP and Kenya C, which the Defendants import through normal distribution process, should be calculated with domestic wholesale price formed in the normal distribution process. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles that erroneously applied Article 11(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to this part of criminal facts by calculating the price of XP and Kenya based on the monthly trend of narcotics issued by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office and the amount actually paid by the Defendants.

3) The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor of three years and six months for each of the defendants A and C sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor of the court below, and four years for each of the defendants B, is too unreasonable. B. The prosecutor (the above sentence imposed by the court below to the defendants) (the above sentence to the defendants is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts by Defendant A and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, i.e., whether Defendant C could seek an X-mail from a person “D” who lives in the United States at an investigative agency.

D was able to send the money, how much it is, and how much it is possible to send the money, and how much you can send the money.

D At the time of sending KRW 12 million to D.

arrow