beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Reasons for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. According to the evidence, such as the prosecutor 1’s misunderstanding of the facts (non-guilty part) M, C, and D’s statement, confession at the prosecution of the Defendant, etc., the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant smoked marijuana in collusion with the above M, etc. on October 7, 2014.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts, the Defendant, along with M, C, D, and N, smoked in the manner of smoking tobacco by inserting approximately 0.3 grams of marijuana on October 7, 2014, within N’s N parked in F located in Gyeonggi-gun E, and inserting approximately 0.6g of marijuana in its inner part, and inserting approximately 0.3g of tobacco.
Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with the above M, etc. to smoke the hemp.
2) In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the Defendant’s confession statement at the prosecution is difficult to believe it as is, and the sole evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant smoked with M, C, D, and N on October 7, 2014, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
A) C/D’s testimony at this Court and the Defendant’s testimony in 2014 as to the facts charged does not accurately memory the fact that the hemp smoked with the Defendant around 2014.
was stated.
B) M testified at this Court and stated to the effect that, although there was a smoke of the hemp in F in Gyeonggi-gun, it does not at any time or accurately memory.
C) M was investigated by the police police in around 2015, and was stated at two times to the effect that “ma smoked marijuana from N on Nov. 1, 2014, Defendant and F.” On October 7, 2014, the police officer made a statement on the following day: (a) the mutual telephone conversations between N and M; (b) the date on which the police took place.