(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.09.24 2015노1067

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) 서울서부지방법원 2015.09.24 2015노1067

마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (as to the crime No. 1 and 20 of the 2015 Highest 220 criminal facts), the Defendant is the date and place specified in paragraph (1) of the 2015 Highest 220 case as indicated in the lower judgment, and at the place specified in paragraph (1) of the 2015 Highest

(2) There is no fact that the Defendant administered philophones at the date, time, and place as stated in Paragraph (2) of the lower judgment’s decision in the case 2015 Godan220.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) On November 24, 2013, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around November 24, 2013, the Defendant: (b) placed the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the vicinity of the Gangdong Post in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, in the Defendant’s vehicle and sold psychotropic drugs, approximately KRW 1.7 million from K; and (c) sold 5g of psychotropic drugs to K.

B) In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that he sold phiphones to K as shown in the facts charged, so there is no reason to believe this part of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts. (1) K led the Defendant to have led to the confession of the fact that phiphones were scoponed from the Defendant, and was on getting out of X at the time of purchasing phiphones. (2) The overall statement of K is not inconsistent with important parts, but is very specific at the time, and is also detailed at the time. (3X calls the word “A” to refer the Defendant to the Defendant within the instant vehicle on the day of this case by the investigative agency, and stated that the Defendant’s face was considered.

Although X stated in the original court that the face of the defendant will be accurately known, X is a motor vehicle.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.01.22 2014노4426

-서울고등법원 2017.05.11 2016노3849

-의정부지방법원 2019.11.19 2019노1588

-청주지방법원 2016.11.02 2016고단1005

-서울서부지방법원 2015.10.15 2015노1072