beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
from the defendant.
Reasons
1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.
2. In a case where the confession of a defendant ex officio is an unfavorable evidence against him, it shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt (Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Thus, in a case where the court found him guilty on the basis of only the confession of the defendant without any supporting evidence, it shall be deemed that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by itself (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7835, Nov. 29, 2007, etc.). Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below, as evidence that found him guilty of each of the facts charged of this case, refers to the evidence that found him guilty of each of the facts charged of this case, ① the legal statement of the defendant, ② the statement of each suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant, B, and D prepared by the prosecutor, ③ the list
In this regard, each of the facts charged in this case is in a substantive concurrent relationship.
In addition, since substantive concurrent crimes are crimes, there should be evidence of reinforcement of confession as to each crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10937, Feb. 14, 2008). Each of the above evidence admitted by the court below as evidence of guilt can be evidence of the purchase of philopon and each philopon medication on March 23, 2017, it cannot be evidence of reinforcement of the purchase of philopon on March 2017, and there is no other evidence of reinforcement of the confession of the defendant as to the purchase of philopon on March 2017.
Therefore, the court below found the defendant guilty on March 201, 201 of the facts charged in the instant case by only the confession of the defendant without any corroborating evidence, of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. by the purchase of Handphones, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the judgment as to the evidence for the reinforcement of the confession, and ultimately, the above part and the remaining crimes are the criminal law.