logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.09.07 2017노1228
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (a year of imprisonment, confiscation, and additional collection of KRW 200,000) on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the judgment defendant led to the confession of the crime and reflects the mistake.

However, the defendant possessed a local mental medicine for a period of up to three months, and purchased a penphone again after two months thereafter, and committed a crime of medication twice.

The nature of the crime is not good in light of the quantity of philopon handled by the defendant or the period of the crime.

Since narcotics not only destroy the body and mind of individuals, but also cause social harm such as causing other crimes, it is necessary to severely punish crimes related to narcotics.

The defendant has two previous criminal records of the same kind, including the previous criminal records subject to the suspended sentence of imprisonment, and seven previous criminal records including the previous criminal records subject to the punishment of imprisonment.

The defendant submitted a public document in the first instance of the trial, and the defendant cooperates in the investigation to enable K to admit a criminal offense against narcotics, so such circumstance must be considered as grounds for mitigation of punishment against the defendant.

However, K is not a person who provides the defendant with a mental medicine, and K's crime is a single selling of a native mental medicine, and it is more serious than the defendant's crime.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, the investigation agency is in the stage of investigation after the criminal is committed against K, and it is difficult to view that the defendant has contributed to the investigation to K to the extent that it is possible to add a criminal action against K.

Ultimately, there is a "important investigation cooperation" to the extent that the punishment for narcotics crimes can be mitigated to the defendant.

Therefore, the above argument cannot be accepted.

In addition, the above circumstances and the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. are discussed in the argument in this case.

arrow