logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.12.15 2015노2597
마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

from the defendant 110 weeks (No. 1) of hemp.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the court below (hereinafter referred to as 8 months of imprisonment, additional collection of 15,00 won) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the prosecutor defendant purchased the hemp seeds, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the portion concerning the cultivation of marijuana despite the fact that the defendant cultivated marijuana.

2. Any person other than a person handling narcotics is prohibited from growing marijuana;

Nevertheless, from March 2015 to June 18, 2015, the Defendant, without a person handling narcotics, cultivated 110 marijuana over the sloped side of his residence located in Jeonnamdo C from March 2015.

3. The court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the prosecutor. i.e., ① the defendant collected and smoked only the marijuana seed coats by using the remaining narcotics ingredients in the hemp seed coats; ② the seeds of the hemp plant are not allowed to possess and purchase them when they are not for medical purposes; ② the seeds of the hemp plant are not allowed to possess and purchase them when they are not for medical purposes; even though the seeds of the hemp can be easily hidden because the defendant's purchase could not be easily hidden, it is difficult to understand that the defendant did not smoke out the hemp seed coats, and left the sloping way between the defendant's house and the road without smoking; ③ the defendant made smoking by using the new order of the hemp in the defendant's family, as shown in the attached Form No. 7, the defendant made the hemp plant in accordance with the new order of the math of the hemp plant, and ④ the defendant cultivated the hemp plant as stated in the facts charged.

4. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is justified.

arrow