logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.08.28 2014노3325
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the sale of philophones among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not sell philophones to C as described in this part of the facts charged, and C’s statement is not consistent with the Defendant’s statement as to the specific situation at the time of delivery in order to purchase philophones after the Defendant’s contact address was known, and there are many parts that are difficult to clearly understand in the statement, and thus, difficult to believe, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of C’s statement. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant sentencing case, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment and eight hundred thousand won of the surcharge) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance court’s judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or in exceptional cases where it is clearly deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s judgment as to the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is significantly unfair considering the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument, the appellate court should not reverse the first instance court’s judgment as to the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). The first instance court back to the instant case and the health class duly admitted the evidence and duly examined the evidence.

arrow