(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.02.20 2013노4133

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.02.20 2013노4133

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.

2,100,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the Defendant, around April 8, 2013, delivered 4.9g phiphones to I is an act of arranging the sale and purchase of E and I. It cannot be deemed a sale.

(2) The Defendant received KRW 600,000 from O around April 15, 2013 the loan amounting to KRW 3 million. The Defendant led to the Defendant’s confession that the Defendant sold 2.6g of phiphones to O was arrested by O’s information, and made a false statement. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and eight months of imprisonment, additional collection 2.7 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the part of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts regarding the sale of phiphones to I, i.e., the Defendant: (a) received the request from I to request I to seek phiphones; and (b) he received direct payments from I and gave phiphones to I; and (c) the Defendant, the upper line of the Defendant’s assertion by the Defendant, was stated at the investigative agency as O and V.

The following facts are revealed: (a) there was no direct transaction between the Defendant and I; (b) there was no direct contact or contact with E at the time of the instant transaction; (c) the Defendant did not take measures such as introducing I to E or arranging I to contact with E; and (d) At the time of the instant transaction, I did not know at all any other specific information about the Defendant by providing the Defendant with a written phone other than the vague circumstance that the Defendant would purchase and dry the written phone from another person; and (d) according to the Defendant’s statement, there was no knowledge that the Defendant issued the written phone to the Defendant would purchase the written phone.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2013.07.25 2013노1316

-춘천지방법원 2017.07.06 2017노221

-인천지방법원 2016.11.11 2016고합450

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2015.12.08 2015고단841

-의정부지방법원 2020.01.17 2019노2575