The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Since the facts charged in Article 3 of the misunderstanding of legal principles cannot be deemed to have been specified in the facts charged because there is no specific statement of the facts charged, the prosecution shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the

As to the facts in the 3rd decision of misunderstanding of facts, although the defendant was found to detect Metepha, there was no fact that the defendant was administered by himself, and the Metepha included the defendant's Metepha in the drinking after the defendant was killed.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (each of the crimes of subparagraphs 1 and 2 at the time of sale: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the misapprehension of the legal principles and the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant had the same assertion in the lower court, and the lower court determined that this part of the facts charged was specified to the extent that it does not infringe the Defendant’s right to defense (legal scenarios) and that the Defendant, like the facts stated in the facts charged, administered phiphones (the part concerning the fact-finding).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of each of the above parts closely with the record, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and considering the following as a whole: (i) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, records of the crime, motive or circumstance of the crime, frequency of medication, and the circumstances after the crime, as stated in the lower court’s and the trial proceedings; and (ii) the sentence imposed by the lower court is reasonable.