logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.08.21 2019노1012
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (Definite misunderstanding of facts and unreasonable sentencing) opened, managed, and operated a website (hereinafter “instant site”) recorded in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment to enable the sale and purchase of narcotics, etc. (Article 1 of the Criminal Act in the original judgment). Defendant 1-A of the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment.

A public invitation with B, G, etc. or 1-c, as described in paragraph (1).

There was no advertisement for the sale of narcotics in collusion with W as described in the paragraph.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts in finding guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B) The Defendant established, managed, and arranged for the sale and purchase of habitual narcotics in this case (Article 2 of the criminal facts in the original judgment). The Defendant did not directly or specifically engage in, or arrange for, the transaction of this case as stated in Paragraph 2 of the criminal facts in the judgment below, and all the process of the said transaction, including the payment of the price, was conducted by himself between the seller and the purchaser without participating in the Defendant or using the “Scro” method provided by the Defendant. Nevertheless, the lower court erred in misunderstanding of facts in finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. 2) The lower court’s punishment (Article 8 years of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection 40,503,261 won) against the Defendant

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant against the prosecutor (unfair form of punishment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. Habitual narcotics sales advertisements of this case (Article 1 of the Criminal Act in its original judgment) 1-related legal principles do not require any legal penalty, but only a combination of intent of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime by committing a crime, and either successively or implicitly.

arrow