(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.11.30 2017노1012

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.11.30 2017노1012

마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)

Text

Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part on Defendant C and the judgment of the court below No. 2 shall be reversed.

Defendant

C. The imprisonment of one year and six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s her depth reflects on Defendant A, and was a friendly son

In light of the fact that only sought narcotics on behalf of B and did not arrange for the transaction of narcotics, and that there was no economic benefit from B, and that there was a severe mental suffering, such as pressure at the time of medication, and that there was no criminal record of the same kind, nor Defendant A’s health status is not good, the sentence (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that Defendant C is in profoundly against the Defendant C, the crime of selling narcotics was committed several times, and there is no relationship with the sales organization of Q, the active cooperation in arresting narcotics offenders, and the equity in punishing other accomplices, etc., the punishment sentenced by the lower court (the lower court’s judgment: 1 year and June, 200: Imprisonment with prison labor: 2 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. There are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the pronouncement of the first judgment on Defendant A’s assertion.

The narcotics crime is a serious crime that has a serious harm to the physical health of the people and requires strict punishment to eradicate it.

Defendant

A has not been limited to a simple medication but mediated the purchase and sale of phiphones.

In addition, considering the various circumstances asserted by Defendant A on the grounds of appeal, considering the following factors, the first original adjudication sentence is too excessive to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, it is not determined that Defendant A’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the reasons for sentencing the first original adjudication.

Defendant

A’s assertion is without merit.

B. Ex officio judgment [the part against Defendant C of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “No. 1.”).

유사 판례

-광주고등법원 (전주) 2018.02.06 2017노172

-광주지방법원 2017.08.22 2016노2509

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.13 2018노2421

-서울동부지방법원 2018.04.13 2017노1633

-대전지방법원 2017.12.27 2017노1891