logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.29 2017노8776
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not sell philophones to A as indicated in the instant facts charged.

Defendant for the same year that passed on April 2016.

9. On August 18, 198, there is only a sign of a philopon to A without compensation, and a judgment has already been issued, and some of the philopons received from the defendant at the time A sold to E.

B. The lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment) against an unjust defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant can be recognized as having sold phiphones to A twice, in addition to the facts charged already became final and conclusive.

Therefore, the decision of the court below to this purport is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(1) On February 10, 2017, A shall give the Defendant the price of KRW 500,000,000 from the Defendant’s residence at around April 2016, and approximately 0.1g and 0.1g of the penphone, and 1g of the hemp.

9. A around 18.10,000 won for the Defendant at the above place and purchased approximately 0.2g of oponphones and approximately 1g of marijuana, respectively, with a sentence of two-year suspended sentence (2016 Gohap 237, hereinafter “the event case”). She was under the police investigation while being tried for the preceding case, she was under the investigation of the police, and she was subject to two further oponphones as described in the facts charged in the instant case, in addition to the purchase of oponphones from the Defendant on two occasions.

was stated.

A is consistent at the investigation stage, “E in the neighboring park of the D shop located in the defendant's dwelling area,” and KRW 500,000.

arrow