logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.01.19 2016고단3288
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

A penalty of KRW 100,000 shall be collected from a defendant.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 10, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Busan District Court on December 10, 2015 and completed the execution of the sentence at the Busan Correctional Institution on July 14, 2016.

1. Around September 28, 2016, the Defendant, who violated the Narcotics Control Act, was not a narcotics handler, administered in a way that mix approximately 0.03 g of meconium c, a local mental medicine medicine, by dilution with mixing approximately 0.03 g of meconium (hereinafter “diphone”).

2. On October 2, 2016, around 03:14, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the property by putting in hand a sealphone at the price equivalent to KRW 440,00,00, which was attached to the above entrance, on his/her hand, in front of the joint entrance entrance door of the first floor of the victim F owned by the victim F in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, without any particular reason; (b) destroying the property by placing the sealphone at his/her hand at the seat; and (c) destroying the back glass of the victim’s Hlearning car parked in the above Ba Ba Ba Ba Ba Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga

3. On October 2, 2016, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties: (a) reported at the 112 Bara parking lot of the Bara on the 104:25th of October 2, 2016 that “the Defendant was off and off his clothes; and (b) committed a crime as provided in paragraph (2) against the police officer belonging to the I District Police Station of the Ganhae who called out after receiving a report.”

In other words, the J notified the principle of disturbance, and assaulted the defendant at one time of the left face of the J as a defect in order to arrest the current criminal due to the suspicion of property damage.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of a flagrant offender by a police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to G, F, K, and J;

1. Each statement of L, M and N;

1. Seizure records;

1. Statement, estimate, and receipt of transaction;

1. Response to a request for appraisal;

1. Each photograph;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries about criminal history, investigation reports (a copy of the judgment attached), and investigation reports (in relation to attachment of search results of prisoners),

1. Article 60 (1) of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, etc. under Article 60 of the same Act concerning criminal facts;

arrow