beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
80,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is as follows: D’s statement consistent with each of the facts charged in the instant case is reliable; according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the above facts charged can be fully acknowledged; however, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of each of the above facts charged is erroneous in the
2. Judgment on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal
A. Each of the facts charged in the instant case reveals that “A person who is not a person handling narcotics, etc., or a psychotropic drug, may not sell and sell a campopon (a). The Defendant is not a person handling narcotics. The Defendant received KRW 500,000 from D on the street near the C Elementary School located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Northern District around August 11, 2016, and sold a camopon and sell a camopon. (b) The Defendant around the short day of August 18, 2016, received KRW 30,000 from D on the street near the C Elementary School, and sold approximately 0.5 g of camopon with a phiopon.”
B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of each of the charges on the grounds that D’s statement, a direct evidence corresponding to each of the facts charged in the instant case, was prepared by the investigation agency on August 24, 2016, on the ground that D’s purchase of phiphones from the Defendant at the time of the initial investigation, stated that the end of July 2016, D demanded the Defendant to sell phiphones, that D’s request the Defendant to sell phiphones did not discover phiphones from the Defendant arrested on August 25, 2016, that D’s phiphones were not detected, that the Defendant was not detected from phiphones from the Defendant as a result of the Defendant’s urine and the Defendant’s oral appraisal, that D’s phiphones were not detected, and that it was insufficient to recognize each of the charges solely with the remaining evidence.
C. In full view of the following circumstances revealed through evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, it is consistent with each of the facts charged in the instant case.