beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.
seizure.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Of the facts stated in the lower judgment, Defendant A1’s charges on the part of smoking marijuana around May 2017, and around May 28, 2017, and around June 1, 2017, among the facts constituting a crime as indicated in the lower judgment, are erroneous as the date and time of the crime is too abstract and specific.
B) Since the Defendant was residing in Japan from May 26, 2017 to May 31, 2017, the Defendant did not interfere with the crime of smoking marijuana in Korea on May 28, 2017 and May 28, 2017, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby recognizing the Defendant to commit the crime of smoking marijuana in Korea on May 26, 201.
2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection KRW 8,326,837) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (a prison term of 10 months, an additional collection of 350,000 won) is too unreasonable.
(c)
Defendant
C1) In fact, the Defendant: (a) was living in Japan from May 29, 2017 to May 31, 2017; and (b) the Defendant did not commit the crime of smoking in Korea around May 2017; (c) but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby recognizing the Defendant to commit the crime of smoking in marijuana in Korea around the same day.
2) The sentence of the lower court that was unfair in sentencing (hereinafter “the sentence of eight months, additional collection KRW 15,00”) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The purport of the law that allows Defendant A to specify the facts charged by specifying the date, time, place, and method of a crime in the relevant facts charged is to limit the scope of the trial against the court and to facilitate the exercise of the defense by specifying the scope of the defense against the accused. Thus, the facts charged is sufficient if the facts constituting the elements of the crime are stated to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements, and even if the date, place, method, etc. of the crime are not clearly stated in the indictment, it is so stated as above.