logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.10.04 2013노1115
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

5,700,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, on December 19, 201, did not sell psychotropic drugs-related psychotropic drugs-related telephones (one philopphones; hereinafter “philopphones”) to E on December 19, 201, and on the 20th of the same month, sold philopphones to E, rather than selling philopphones, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges against the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the phrase “as of December 19, 201,” “as of December 19, 201, 22:05,” under paragraph (1) of the facts charged, to “as of December 19, 201, 200:05,” and as of December 22, 201, the judgment below was no longer maintained.

B. Determination of misunderstanding of facts: Provided, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court concerning the changed facts charged.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the court below and the trial court are consistently consistent to the investigation agency, the court below, and the court of the trial. In particular, in the court of the trial, E statements that purchased phiphones over two times from the defendant. In particular, the whole statement related to the purchase of phiphones can be specific and it cannot be said that there is a big conflict between the statements, such as testimony to pay more money than the first purchase and purchase more than the second purchase at the court of the trial, and E statements about the date of purchase of phiphones from the defendant somewhat different from the investigation agency and the court of the court of the trial. However, the degree of such difference is obvious as well.

arrow