logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.12.15 2016노3974
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the result of the maternal test conducted by the prosecutor (as to the acquittal portion), the court below found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though the Defendant sufficiently recognized the fact of medication of philophones from October 13, 2015 to November 12, 2015.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined the prosecutor’s assertion of misconception of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine. Of the facts charged in the instant case, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant was not guilty on the ground that: (a) there was an investigation request; (b) a copy of confirmation of close inspection; and a copy of a reply to appraisal request as evidence showing that it conforms to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (e.g., use of Handphone medication among the facts charged from October 13, 2015 to November 12, 2015; and (c) each of the evidence was seized and appraised about about 1.5 to 2.8cc in length of the Defendant’s 30 to 60cc in length; and (d) it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant was not guilty on the ground that there was no reasonable evidence to prove that the Defendant was administered, as the result of the said appraisal from around August 13, 2015 to around November 13, 2015.

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. It is reasonable to consider the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, including the fact that the Defendant made a confession of the instant crime and reflects the mistake, and that it is a simple medication case.

arrow