logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.09.24 2015노1784
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1’s erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the administration of phiphonephones around 2014, the date and time indicated in this part of the facts charged are specified on the basis of evidence with no admissibility. As such, the indictment procedure is invalid in violation of the provisions of the Act, or is not proven to the facts charged. 2) Unless otherwise, the sentencing of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment and one additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) As to the administration of philophones around 201, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant sufficiently recognizes the fact that the philophones were administered as stated in this part of the facts charged. Even if not, the lower court’s above sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that this part of the facts charged was not specified in the facts charged at the court below's judgment with the same contents as the grounds for appeal in this part. The court below rejected the above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel in detail in the column of "decision on the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion". In comparison with the records and records, the court below's determination that "this part of the facts charged was specified to the extent that it does not infringe the defendant's right of defense, considering the characteristics of the crime, to the extent that it does not infringe the defendant's right of defense," is just and acceptable, and G testimony cannot be used as evidence under Article 316 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be fully recognized that he administered phiphones as shown in this part of the facts charged, and the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or charged.

arrow