(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.07.05 2013노1537 | 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) 서울고등법원 2013.07.05 2013노1537

마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of mistake of facts is only a fact that philophones have been administered as stated in the crime No. 4 (j) and (k) of the crime of this case, and the crime No. 1-B of the judgment;

(c) The importation of philophones is merely aiding and abetting the importation of C’s smuggling, and there was no other crime such as the importation, receipt, sale, medication, etc. of the remaining philophones.

B. In light of the fact that C, who actually served as a real agent for the instant crime, was sentenced to two years of imprisonment, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant argued the same as the reasons for appeal in this part, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail under the title "the judgment as to the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion". When comparing the above judgment of the court below with the records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

B. The instant crime of determining unfair sentencing is based on the following factors: (a) the Defendant conspired with C to import psychotropic drugs in collusion on three occasions; (b) received and delivered phiphones over three occasions; (c) sold once; (d) sold psychotropic drugs; and (e) administered 11 times; (c) the Defendant’s contents of the crime are bad and bad; (d) the amount of phiphones handled by the Defendant; (e) most of them are sold and distributed or administered; (e) most of them are likely to have a significant adverse impact on individuals and society; (e) the Defendant did not reflect on the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime; and (e) the conditions of sentencing indicated in the instant argument, such as the circumstances before and after the instant crime.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2012.12.07 2012노3563

-서울고등법원 2016.10.28 2016노2062

-서울고등법원 2020.04.01 2019노2484

-서울고등법원 2016.11.25 2016노2288

-서울고등법원 2014.04.17 2014노490