logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.01.27 2015노1178
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

Defendant

A and the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are all dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of Defendant A (one year of imprisonment, additional collection) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s sentence (as against the Defendants) against the Defendants of the lower court (as to Defendant B: imprisonment of six months, two years of suspended execution, observation of protection, 40 hours of attending the class of narcotics treatment, confiscation, and additional collection) is deemed to be too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendants recognized their mistake and reflects on the fact that Defendant B cooperates with the investigation; Defendant B did not have the same criminal record; Defendant A’s crime is not good to sell 8g philopon; Defendant A went back to the instant crime without being aware of during the period of suspension of execution; Defendant A had been punished for the same crime several times, including the punishment, and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the motive and background leading up to the instant crime; the circumstances after the commission of the crime; and the age, behavior, environment, etc. of the Defendants, the punishment imposed by the court below is too heavy, or the punishment imposed by the Defendants is too uneasible. Thus, Defendant A and the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion are without merit.

3. In conclusion, Defendant A’s appeal and the Prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are without merit, and all of them are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the Defendants’ obligation to pay additional charges is in a subordinate joint and several obligation relationship. Thus, the judgment of the court below is corrected as changing “each of the subparagraphs 3,” and “each of the subparagraphs 5, 14, to “each of them” respectively.

arrow