beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant has not administered philophones at the time and place indicated in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of fact, i.e., D statements from the investigative agency to the court of the court below that there was a fact that phiphone was administered together with the defendant as stated in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the criminal facts in the judgment below, and there was no particular circumstance to suspect the credibility of the above statements, and the contents of the mobile phone call between the defendant and D correspond to the above D's statement, and the defendant also stated that there was a fact that Do was only at the time of the investigation into the prosecution, as stated in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below at the time of the prosecutor's investigation, it can be recognized the fact that phi was administered in collusion with D as stated in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below.
B. Although the Defendant made a confession of some of the crimes on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant has already been punished five times prior to each of the crimes in this case (one fine, one suspended sentence, one time of imprisonment, and three imprisonment with prison labor). In addition, on April 4, 2012, as the last punishment, the Defendant was sentenced to one year for the crime of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. in the Busan District Court’s East Branch Support on January 24, 2013, and was sentenced to one year from the time when the execution of the sentence was completed on January 24, 2013, and the same crime was committed in the same manner as the instant crime was committed since the lapse of one month from the time when the execution of the sentence was completed, and the Defendant did not go against his mistake while denying some of the crimes, and other Defendant’s age, character and behavior.