beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The punishment (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) imposed on the accused by the court below is too unreasonable.
On December 11, 2007, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the Defendant made a confession of the entire crime of this case and reflects his mistake in depth; and (b) the Defendant was punished for the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. by imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months in the Busan District Court for the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.; and (c) the Defendant did not have the same criminal records
However, the crime of this case is about 0.06 g and 0.03 g of the main text of this case. The defendant administered approximately two times the main text of this case. The defendant had a single sentence for the same crime, has a history of criminal punishment once suspended, has a history of threatening family under the suspension of execution, has committed an act threateninging family under the administration of a philopon. The defendant is detained in this case and has two times disciplinary punishments (9 days per 9 days and 13 days per 13 days per 13 days) due to a violation of discipline during confinement. According to the following facts: (a) the punishment of the same and similar cases is equitable, the age and character of the defendant, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., and the punishment imposed by the court below falls under the scope of imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind and similar crimes; and (b) the scope of punishment for each violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (one to three months per five months per five months per five years per five years per five years per three years per five years per day).
In full view of internal points, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the defendant is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is accepted.