beta
Text
All convictions of the first, second and third judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for two years, Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below that sentenced the defendants (unfair punishment: 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment; 1.8 million won of imprisonment; 3 years of imprisonment; 1 year; confiscation; 100,000 won of imprisonment; 1 year; 40 hours of probation; 170,000 won of therapy; 2 years of imprisonment; 1 year of probation; 3 years of imprisonment; 40 hours of therapy; 170,00 won of imprisonment; 1 year of suspended sentence; 3 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. According to the evidence of mistake of facts, even if the defendant was found to have sold philophones to E three times from January 16, 2017 to March 1 of the same year, the third instance court's judgment that found the defendant not guilty of this part is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts) the sentence imposed by the third instance court of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the Prosecutor, the Defendants filed an appeal against the lower judgment and the pleadings were combined in the trial. Each of the crimes decided by the lower judgment is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to a single sentence pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the conviction portion of the first, second, and third, the lower judgment, which sentenced a separate sentence for each of the above crimes, cannot be maintained in this respect.
3. The summary of this part of the facts charged regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts is that the Defendant sold approximately KRW 7g of phiphonephones to E three times from January 16, 2017 to March 16 of the same year.
The court below held that E made a statement consistent with this part of the facts charged at an investigative agency, sent money to AA account in the name of AI used by E, and that there is a telephone conversation between E and the cellular phone used by the defendant at the time stated in this part of the facts charged, but R is an important evidence supporting this part of the facts charged, while R appears in the court of the court below and R is the case.