beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, additional collection of 10850,000 won) is too unreasonable.
2. The crime of this case requires strict punishment in that the defendant sells a local mental medicine and marijuana and smokes marijuana, and the responsibility for the crime is not less severe, and narcotics-related crimes are likely to cause serious adverse effects on society as a whole, such as impairing the health of the people, or inducing other crimes by impairing the health of the people.
However, the Defendant recognized the instant crime and was sentenced to a fine for violation of the Road Traffic Act only once, and did not have any record of being punished for the instant crime. It appears that the Defendant did not gain profit from the instant sale, and that the Defendant and his parents actively receive treatment for the mental therapy caused by the Defendant’s depression and the prevention of recurrence of the narcotics-related crimes, etc. are favorable to the Defendant.
In addition, the defendant's age, sex, health, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, the method and consequence of the crime, the method and consequence of the crime, and the criteria for suspension of the scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing: [The main reason is positive] there is no record of criminal punishment related to narcotics [the positive reason]. In full view of the social relation clear, serious reflectness, there is no criminal record above the suspended sentence, and the voluntary affirmative treatment doctor of the drug addict, the court below that sentenced the defendant to the punishment is unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is justified.
3. If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable.