(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.01.08 2015노1300 | 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) 울산지방법원 2016.01.08 2015노1300

마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the criminal facts No. 1 of the judgment of the court below, the defendant did not deliver a penphone to E.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 200,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility of the assertion of mistake of facts, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.

Unless there exist special circumstances to view that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is considerably unfair, or considering the results of the first instance examination and the results of additional examination conducted until the closing of oral pleadings, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3846, Jun. 24, 2010). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court in light of the above legal principles, “E” has made a somewhat inconsistent statement on the date and time when the phone was issued by the defendant, but from the investigative agency to the court of the first instance, it cannot be found that there was no specific circumstance to obtain the defendant’s testimony from the defendant, including the fact that he/she was delivered with the phone, and there was no other specific circumstance to the effect that he/she was given the phone and the phone.

Therefore, the credibility of the E’s statement is reliable.

참조판례

-대법원 2010. 6. 24. 선고 2010도3846 판결

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2018.02.02 2017노2451

-대전지방법원 2018.05.25 2018노421

-서울북부지방법원 2018.01.12 2017노520

-서울북부지방법원 2017.11.03 2017노1092

-서울북부지방법원 2017.12.15 2017노689