beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.
Defendant
C A person shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and two months.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) The Defendant did not administer approximately 0.03 gramopon around September 1, 2016, as stated in the judgment of the court below, among the facts constituting the crime [2016 order 2576] case 1, which was administered around 19:30 on September 2016.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, Defendant A can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant A administered approximately 0.03g of oponon around September 19, 2016, as stated in the judgment of the court below (2016 high group 2576) and paragraph (1) of the case.
Therefore, the above defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.
1) At the investigative agency, I met the above Defendant at the vicinity of the K Hospital located in AC at the time of the instant case, and at that time the said Defendant and P were the same, and the said Defendant administered phiphones on the stoke in one’s stoke.
“The statement was made to the effect that “........”
2) P in the investigative agency, “I was waiting in the vicinity of the K hospital according to the above Defendant at the time of the instant case, and I was in the vehicle operated by I, the said Defendant, scophophone, scophophones, scophered on the paper, but was scophophones to the extent that I could be mixed.
The above defendant administered philophones by means of injecting them with a single-use injection device, and said that philophones were given to himself:
In addition, he/she had been infected C, but he/she had received treatment before now, and did not refuse to use the injection equipment used by the above defendant.
“The lower court made the statement.”
3) Defendant A at the prosecutor’s office “A himself is only one time after receiving approximately 0.03g of a one-time popon from I in the vicinity of the K Hospital at the time of the instant case, using a disposable popon injection device.