Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.
except that this shall not apply.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
1) The judgment of the court below that found the omission of the determination of forfeiture on seized articles (Evidence 3 through 8, Nos. 19), 2 points in the pipe-type marijuana inhales(Evidence 3), 1 point in the pipe-type marijuana inhales(Evidence 4), 1 point in the colorer for marijuana crushing (Evidence 5), 1 point (Evidence 6), 1 combination of subdivided plastic bags (Evidence 7), 6 points in the pipe-type plastic bags (Evidence 8), 1 point in the pipe-type tobacco inhalesing machine (Evidence 19): 2 times in the suspension of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of collection of unjust as it is unlawful.
Defendant
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the part A, Defendant A was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of six months of imprisonment with labor for violating the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.) at the Suwon District Court on June 20, 2018, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 22, 2018.
Defendant
Since each crime of the judgment of the court below against A and the above violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.), etc. of which judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, in relation to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a punishment for each crime shall be imposed in consideration of equity in the case of concurrent judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and in this regard, the part against Defendant
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's allegation of omission in the judgment of confiscation is still subject to the judgment of this court.