beta
Text
All appeals by the defendant against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal each of the sentencing (as to the judgment of the court below No. 1 and No. 2)
2. Determination
A. The Defendant filed an appeal against the lower judgment as to whether to reverse ex officio following a consolidated examination. This court decided to hold a joint hearing of the above two appeals cases. However, the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which was concluded on September 8, 2016 (No. 2016No. 400) and the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which was established on September 8, 2016, are concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, notwithstanding the decision of consolidated examination, the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., which was adopted on the First Trial (No. 2016 No. 400) and the punishment should be separately determined.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be reversed on the ground of consolidated proceedings.
B. In light of the favorable circumstances in which the first instance court rendered a judgment on each of the unfair arguments of sentencing had no previous convictions in addition to the one-time suspension of execution, and where this judgment became final and conclusive, the first instance court sentenced the Defendant to a punishment (a punishment of 6 months and a penalty of 6 months) by taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the suspended sentence became final and conclusive, and other various sentencing conditions (a punishment of 6 months and a penalty of 6 months).
In addition, under favorable circumstances, the second instance court determined the sentence of punishment (criminal for four months and penalty collection) considering various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., in consideration of the fact that the defendant traded approximately 5.8g of philopon two times, and that the crime of this case requires severe social harm caused by toxicity.