beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The punishment of the accused shall be determined by one year and six months.
Defendant 2,00. 2,000
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant did not sell philophones to E, and there is no fact that he administered by himself.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below regarding the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence) due to the purchase and sale of phiphones, the defendant can fully recognize the fact that he sold phiphones to E around September 20, 2017, as stated by the court below, and thus, the defendant's assertion on this part is not accepted.
B. We examine ex officio the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fluence) due to the administration of philon.
1) The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant administered philopon one time between the police officer in the middle of October 2017 and the police officer in the middle of January 2018 in an irregular manner in Incheon (hereinafter referred to as “Scoponon"). 2) The purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulating that “The facts charged should be stated clearly by specifying the time, date, place, and method of the crime” is to ensure the efficiency and speed of the trial by limiting the object of the trial and to facilitate the exercise of the Defendant’s defense right by specifying the scope of defense. As such, the prosecutor must comprehensively consider the three specific elements and describe specific facts that constitute the elements of the crime to enable identification of other facts. The same applies to the statement on the facts of the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., the content that narcotics were administered without a person handling narcotics, etc.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2392, Jun. 1, 2007). However, according to each of the evidence of this case, the prosecutor, according to the evidence of this case, has the composition of Metetramin and Matamin with respect to the Defendant’s hair (50 water) collected on January 31, 2018.