beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The fact that the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, purchased phiphones from previous D, was the date of purchase, not around September 30, 2016 (or September 29, 2016) but around December 24, 2016, unlike this part of the facts charged.
Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant of this part of the charged facts. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles on the application of repeated crimes under Article 35 of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and additional collection of KRW 500,00) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. On September 29, 2016, the Defendant of this part of the facts charged: (a) transferred 300,000 won of philopon to D; and (b) purchased philopon from D in a “F” restaurant parking lot located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Incheon at around 20:40 of the following month on the 30th day of the same month; and (c) purchased philopon by means of taking approximately 0.7g of philopon from D.
2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court: (i) the Defendant recognizes the purchase of phiphones in the first instance court, i.e., if the Defendant excluded the date of the crime, the Defendant itself as to the purchase of phiphones; (ii) at the time of selling phiphones to the Defendant, the investigation agency has relatively and consistently stated in the investigation agency about the details of the sales of phiphones to the Defendant, the date and time and place of the sale, the method of receiving the sales proceeds, and the volume of the sales proceeds; and such statement was made between the Defendant and D (the telephone details on September 29, 2016 and September 30, 2016) and the location and details of financial transactions (the 300,000 won was transferred to the post office account under D’s name) at the time of the transfer between the Defendant and D, and (iii) the Defendant has changed from the investigation agency to the investigation agency on September 29, 2016.