beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and ten months of imprisonment, and four hundred thousand won of collection) is too unreasonable.
2. There are extenuating circumstances to consider the sentencing favorable to the sentencing, such as the fact that the accused acknowledges and reflects the crime, supporting the mother, and cooperating in the investigation into narcotics crimes.
However, there are many extenuating circumstances in sentencing, such as the fact that the defendant has been sentenced several times of imprisonment for the same crime (one time of suspended sentence, five times of suspended sentence), the crime of this case has been committed again during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, and the repeated act of committing the same crime during the period of repeated crime from around 2012 when the execution of punishment is completed, and the crime of providing phiphones to other persons beyond the simple medication is committed.
Therefore, considering the Defendant’s age, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., various sentencing conditions are considered, and considering that the lower court determined the punishment within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit.
However, the evidence is examined, and the date of each crime under paragraphs (3) and (4) of the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment below shall be deemed to be " March 6, 2015" rather than " March 5, 2015." However, since all of the crimes are recognized, the defendant is also in need of change of the date of the crime, and there is no need to change the date of the crime as above, and therefore, it does not hinder the defendant's right to defense. Thus