logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.01.28 2015노2650
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) E was found to have received philopon from the Defendant in the investigative agency and the court of original instance

The court below rejected the E’s statement and acquitted all of the above facts charged on the ground that E’s statement was accepted due to reasonable grounds, and the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the credibility of E’s testimony in light of the following: L, I, and J’s statement, and the result of the investigation into the detection of false remarks against the Defendant; and thus, it can be sufficiently convicted of this part of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The court below denied that the defendant purchased, arranged, or administered a penphones as stated in the facts charged in the instant case from the investigative agency to the court of the court below. However, the copy of each police interrogation protocol against E and each police interrogation protocol against E is inadmissible as long as the defendant in the relation of accomplice denies the contents thereof. ② The part of the statement related to the instant case among the copy of the prosecutor's interrogation protocol against I is not the consent of the defendant to use it as evidence, and the part of the prosecutor's interrogation protocol against I is not admissible as the defendant, and since I was present at the court of the court of the court below to deny its establishment, it is not admissible as evidence

The following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, in the case of a partial statement of E in investigation agency and each statement in the court of the court below, are the purchase of phiphonephones presented by E, which are not consistent with the repeated statement, when being investigated by investigation agency.

arrow