beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Despite the fact that the Defendant had purchased phiphones from E on the date stated in the facts charged of this case, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.
B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s imprisonment (one hundred months of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) Although the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, on November 26, 2010, the Defendant purchased approximately 0.7 grams, a psychotropic drug, from E, which contained approximately 0.7 grams of psychotropic drugs in the prison’s prison’s prison’s prison’s prison’s prison’s prison life on November 14:52, 2010, from the Credit Union Gyeonggi-si in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, about 22-6, the Defendant purchased approximately 0.7 grams, a psychotropic drug, by means of remitting the purchase price of 50,000,000 won of phiphones, from the Credit Union Gyeonggi-gu, Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-si’s “Feng-si, Gwangju-si,” and by means of remitting the purchase price of KRW 500,000,000 of phiphones.
(B) On December 16, 2010, the Defendant purchased approximately 0.7 gramphones, psychotropic drugs, using the method of remitting KRW 500,000,000 from the National Bank “Banandong 25-6, Gwangju, to the said Nonghyup account, and delivering approximately 0.7 gramphones, which contain approximately 0.7 grams from E, from December 19, 2010 to the said “D” around December 20, 2010.
(2) The lower court’s judgment: (a) although the Defendant asserts that he lent money to E; (b) there is no objective evidence to support the Defendant’s monetary transaction in addition to the details of two transfers as indicated in the facts charged of the instant case; (c) E clearly identified the Defendant by clearly distinguishing the accomplice from the person who traded phiphones from the person who traded phiphones and the person who traded phiphones, and (c) around the deposit date of the Defendant.