beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
0.0.10.20.20.20.20.20.20
Reasons
1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant on the amendment of the indictment, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, and the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment as stated in paragraph (7) (Article 6) of the facts charged in the case of the 2012 Gohap953 (Article 2012 Gohap953 of the judgment of the court below) as stated in the following facts. The subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission. On the other hand, each of the crimes of this case was concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below
B. On April 21, 2012, ex officio, the attempt to sell and purchase phiphones violates the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.) by attempted to sell and sell phiphones around April 21, 2012 among the facts charged in the instant case.
When the confession of a defendant is the only evidence against him/her, it shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt. Thus, if the defendant is found guilty on the basis of only the confession of the defendant without any supporting evidence, it shall be deemed that there was an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7835, Nov. 29, 2007). Even when examining the evidence as stated by the court below as well as other records, it is difficult to find any supporting evidence except the confession of the defendant. Thus, this constitutes a case where there is no supporting evidence of criminal facts.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty solely on the confession of the defendant was erroneous in violation of Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more in this respect.
3. Conclusion.