beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
A work made of seized stuffs.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a prison term of three years and six months, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) As a result of the appraisal of the Defendant’s conspiracy of mistake of facts (not guilty part) and the assessment of the Defendant’s hair, the Metepha and Macopty (hereinafter “copon”).
(2) In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant did not reasonably explain the reasons discovered in the body; (b) the Defendant was unable to reasonably explain the reason why the above ingredients were found in the body; and (c) the Defendant’s shotphone medication time was calculated from March 19, 2019, when the Defendant’s shotphone medication time was collected from March 19, 2019, when the Defendant’s shotphone medication was proved to be a policeman during the period from mid- January 2019 to mid- March 2019; and (d) there is no possibility that the shotphone medication was administered by another person known to the Defendant; (b) the lower court omitted the sentence of forfeiture of the shotphone (Seoul District Prosecutor’s Office No. 580-2, 2019, hereinafter “the instant mobile phone”).
3. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) from January 1, 2019 to March 2019, 2019, injected psychotropic drugs into a single psychotropic injection machine; and (c) injected them into one’s arms or drink in water or drinking water after dilution them into a single psychotropic drug in a non-pharmaceutical place; (d) the lower court’s judgment on March 19, 2019, collected on March 19, was 2 to 3.5cm in length of the Defendant’s 2 to 3.5cm, and the Defendant did not explain the reasons therefor; and (e) the Defendant did not have any other way introduced into the body of the Defendant through drugs, etc.; and thus, (e) the Defendant did not use phiphonephones within the immediately preceding one to three months.