logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.07.24 2015노1844
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The accused shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant does not have administered philophones, such as written in the facts charged.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, one hundred thousand won of collection) is too unreasonable.

The summary of the facts charged regarding the assertion of mistake of facts was administered by the Defendant from March 26, 2014 to March 31, 2014 in a non-fluoral manner at the Busan and Kim Jong-si.

The lower court determined that the witness D’s legal statement, appraisal request report, investigation report, etc., and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on the following grounds.

The director of the Busan Institute of Scientific Investigation and Investigation of the Republic of Korea has made a response to the detection of mert ambacs in the defendant's urine, and if there is a reply to such a request for appraisal, the urine, which is an experiment, was changed in the appraisal that served as the basis of the response.

Unless there are specific circumstances, such as that there was a mistake or error, it should be recognized that the Metetracian ingredient was detected in the mouth taken from the defendant, and therefore, under the rule of logic and experience, the defendant has determined that he administered the Metetracian in the Metecians before collecting the urine subject to appraisal, and that "the defendant was unable to recover the Metecians because he was hospitalized in the hospital," but according to the investigation report (Investigation Records 149-153), he did not seem to have reached the hospital only at the time of criminal facts according to the investigation report (Investigation Records 149-153), and there was no way that the defendant had included the Metecian or the Metecians included in the drug prescribed during the period of hospitalization, and there was no special reason to have the defendant administer the Metecians by inserting the Metecians in the manner of inserting the Metecians in the drinking water without knowledge of the defendant, such as his relative, etc.

arrow