logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2018.04.13 2018노25
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of Defendant A (unfair sentencing) by the lower court (three years of imprisonment and confiscation) is excessively unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts and Sentencing of sentencing) 1 is the sole crime committed by Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A”), and Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) did not participate in the crime, and only lent KRW 500,000 to Defendant A by lending an important document, and Defendant A did not know the fact that Defendant A purchased a penphone.

2) Even if Defendant B’s act is found guilty, the lower court’s sentencing (two years and six months and confiscation) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, Defendant B may be recognized as having imported phiphones as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below in collusion with Defendant A.

Therefore, Defendant B’s above assertion is rejected.

1) Defendant A purchased phiphone from the person called “E” in the Philippines, in collusion with Defendant B, as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment, from the investigative agency to the court.

A consistent statement is consistently made, and the reasons why the phonephones were purchased, the purchase price, the role sharing among the Defendants, etc. are clearly stated.

2) The Defendants agreed at the investigative agency to provide E with KRW 700,000 and to purchase phiphones. Among them, KRW 400,000 were to be borne by Defendant A and the remaining KRW 300,000 were to be borne by Defendant B, and KRW 50,000,000 was to be paid to Defendant B’s money once.

In fact, the above KRW 500,000 was consistently stated, and Defendant B paid to E through the Switzerland women called “P”.

3) Defendant A is the defendant A.

arrow