beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Error of facts (as to the facts of each of the crimes in the case of 2015Kadan557), the Defendant purchased and administered Metecopon from I (hereinafter “Mecopon”). However, even before October 22, 2013, the lower court recognized that the Defendant committed the crime of Hacopon on November 22, 2013, and recognized that the Defendant committed the crime of Hacopon on November 2013, and committed a repeated crime as to each of the crimes in the case of 2015Kadan557 (Article 3 and 4 of the original criminal facts in the judgment), and thus, there is an error of law
B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (the imprisonment of August and the imprisonment of 10 months for the crimes of Articles 1 and 2 of the original decision, and the imprisonment of 3 and 4 of the decision of the court below) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant purchased phiphones from I on November 201, 2013, as stated in Articles 3 and 4 of the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, and sufficiently recognized the fact that phiphones were administered immediately thereafter, so there was no error of misapprehending the facts concerning the period of committing the crime in the judgment of the lower court, thereby making it erroneous for the application of repeated crime provisions.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.
1) While informing the Defendant of the fact that he sold phiphones from the prosecutor’s office, I expressed the time of sale from December 9, 2013 to around 10 days before the date of his entry into the probation office, and specifically stated that he was the end of November 2013 (No. 2 of the evidence record No. 14). (2) The Defendant also recognized that he administered phiphones at the prosecutor’s office on November 2013, at the same time, at the end of November 2013, while the person who purchased phiphones from I is not accurately memoryd, the Defendant was the same as the person who purchased phiphones from I at the prosecutor’s office, but he was wraped with phiphones at the end of November 2013.
(No. 2, No. 279, No. 280 of the Evidence Records). 3 Defendant is charged with the facts charged in the fourth trial of the lower court.