beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The lower court dismissed the prosecution against the Defendant regarding the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. and convicted the Defendant of the remaining facts charged in relation to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.
As to this, the Defendant appealed from the judgment of the court below on the grounds of mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing, on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on confiscation, and unfair sentencing on the guilty portion.
Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant and dismissed the prosecution against the defendant was separated and confirmed by the intention of the appeal period.
Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction of the defendant.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (in the event of the instant case, there was no fact that the Defendant either committed violence against the victimJ at the time of the instant case or threatened the victimJ by knife. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges on this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court
B. Prosecutor 1) A written application for issuance of a resident registration certificate (No. 1; hereinafter “instant seized articles”) which has been mistaken for mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles as to confiscation.
(2) The judgment of the court below, which did not sentence confiscation, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to confiscation or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles. (2) The sentence imposed by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.
3. Determination
A. The Defendant alleged in the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts to the same effect as the above grounds for appeal. The lower court rejected this part of the judgment in full view of the circumstances as stated in its reasoning.