beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B For each judgment of the court below.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although Defendant A, B (Lawio) and B were not provided to the investigation agency for the instant crime, the lower court rendered a confiscation of the said Handphone. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on confiscation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The Defendants (unfairness) committed by the lower court against the Defendants each sentence (the Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment; the Defendant B: - Imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as stated in the lower judgment; 1 year and six months of imprisonment; 1 year and four months of imprisonment, 1 year and four months of imprisonment, and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (f) as stated in the lower judgment.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles on Defendant A and B, the investigative agency seized 1 handphone (three blick AS) from Defendant A as “Evidence No. 32,” and four handphones (three gallon AT, three gallon, gallon 5 gallon gallon, gallon gallon, gallon 5 gallon city) from Defendant B as “Evidence No. 28 through 31,” respectively. The lower court deemed that all five handphones were provided for the instant crime, and thus, confiscated from the said Defendants by applying the main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act.
According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant A among the five Handphones, is recognized as having provided one of the Handphones of the above Handphones, and the defendant B provided one of the Handphones of the "T" AS" to the crime of this case.
However, as a thorough examination of the records of this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B provided or intended to provide three remaining Handphones (three galtho, galtho 5 galtho, galtho galthoe white) for the instant crime.
Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion of legal principles is without merit, but the judgment of the court below that forfeited three of the above Handphones from Defendant B, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.