beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Error of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle on the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fluence) there is no fact that the Defendant, as recorded in each of the facts charged, delivered a phiphone to D with D. 2) On the part of the crime of opening gambling places, the Defendant did not obtain profits, such as cost of providing a place or time, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, and the instant gambling merely
B. Sentencing of the lower court: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and three months, additional collection KRW 677,740
2. Determination
A. In the trial process of the appellate court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence, and the judgment of the first instance court was clearly erroneous.
In a case where there is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the determination on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court. In full view of the circumstances set forth in its reasoning, the lower court rejected all the Defendant’s arguments regarding the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. and the establishment of gambling places, and subsequently convicted all of the facts charged in the instant case.
Examining the above judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous.
There is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unfair as it is against logical and empirical rules, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.
B. Unreasonable sentencing.