beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. As to the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (in the case of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (in the case of the crime Nos. 1 through 29 attached to the judgment of the court below), the sentence of the court below (in the case of the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (in the case of the crime of violation of the attached Table No. 30 to 33): Imprisonment for two months and additional collection and the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.
2. On October 21, 2016, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of ten months for a crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act (a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.) in the Daejeon District Court’s Support on October 21, 2016, taking full account of the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant, and sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of two years for a period of ten months. The said judgment became final and conclusive on October 28, 2016.
A. Although the Defendant revoked, this is only the result of repeating the same kind of crime in violation of the special observance of the protective observation order, and there is no circumstance to be newly considered in the trial. Therefore, considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
The Defendant shall additionally collect KRW 1,566,00 (i.e., 180 x 29 x 300 won) for the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fi.e., Crimes Nos. 1 or 29 x 300 x 1,566), which is attached to the judgment of the lower court, from the Defendant. However, the lower court sentenced this portion to a surcharge of KRW 56,00 as to this portion, and the Prosecutor did not appeal against the Defendant pursuant to the principle of the prohibition of disadvantageous alteration. Therefore, the lower judgment is not reversed on this ground.