(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.03.30 2017노8954 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.03.30 2017노8954

마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) On February 26, 2017, 2017, the Defendant did not sell a phiphone to F as indicated in this part of the facts charged.

At the time, the defendant only stated F with H, and the F made a false statement in order to protect the actual penphone seller.

B) On May 2017, the Defendant did not have smokeed of marijuana as indicated in the facts charged.

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court (a 2 years of imprisonment, 703,000 additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances as revealed by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court on February 26, 2017, as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts, the fact that the Defendant sold phiphones to F is sufficiently recognized as indicated in the facts charged.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(1) The F voluntarily accompanying the police station on February 28, 2017, after the date and time of the crime described in this part of the facts charged, to the police station for the same year.

3. 6. The first statement on the Defendant was made by the Defendant, and consistently purchased philophones from the Defendant from the Defendant to the original court

The statement made by the defendant is very specific, objective, reasonable, and reasonable in relation to the circumstances, place, situation, etc. of purchasing philophones.

B. According to the F’s entry and departure details of the E’s parking lot, the F’s vehicle was 20:27 on the day of the instant case, and the Defendant’s vehicle was 20:38 around the 20:52, and the F’s vehicle was 20:54 around the 20:52, and the Defendant’s vehicle was 20:54 around the 20:54, which conforms to the F’s statement concerning the order, time, etc. of arrival at the place where the F stated.

Article 25(1)(2) of the Act provides that "F shall purchase the telephone phone from the defendant first on the day of this case."

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.09.15 2017노4034

-서울남부지방법원 2013.08.30 2013노434

-수원지방법원 2019.06.28 2019노956

-울산지방법원 2017.11.03 2017노1050

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.12 2018노1437