(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.16 2017노2963

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.16 2017노2963

마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1.8 million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In relation to the part not guilty in the judgment of the court below, prosecutor 1) found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges by finding that the outcome of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of the judgment of the court below (No. 24 No. 5 of the evidence list) against the defendant who caused the reaction of philophone training could not be evidence for the reinforcement of confession as to the purchase of philophones as well as the administration of philophones, but the result of misunderstanding of the philophones and the appraisal of philophones cannot be evidence for the reinforcement of confessions.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On December 12, 2016, the Defendant transferred KRW 300,000 to H while releasing from Daejeon Prison on the charge as to the non-guilty portion as indicated in the lower judgment (hereinafter “the charge”), and purchased KRW 0.5g 0.5g opon from H on the street in front of the I hot spring ground located in Busan Geum-gu around 06:00.

2) On February 2, 2017, the Defendant purchased approximately 0.4g opon from H 1.50,000 won at a non-place located in the Geum-gu, Busan, Seo-dong.

B. Although the Defendant made a confession of this part of the facts charged, if the confession is an unfavorable evidence, it shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt (Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act). In addition, where the confession is a substantive concurrent crime, there is a proof of reinforcement for each crime.

The result of the Defendant’s surgical and maternity appraisal from the reaction to the training of phiphones can only serve as a supporting evidence for the administration of phiphones, and it cannot be a supporting evidence for this part of the facts charged (the purchase of phiphones) with substantive concurrent crimes, and contrary to this part of the facts charged, H of philophone sellers who can serve as a supporting evidence for this part of the facts charged.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.12.13 2018노1053

-대전고등법원 2015.07.03 2015노44

-광주지방법원 2021.04.15 2020고단901

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.17 2018노2845

-대구지방법원 안동지원 2016.01.26 2015고단701