(영문) 부산고등법원 2017.01.26 2016노617 | 리걸엔진

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) 부산고등법원 2017.01.26 2016노617

마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)

Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection KRW 100,000) that the court below sentenced the defendant against the defendant is too unreasonable (the defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant has contributed to the arrest of another narcotics offender should be evaluated and reflected as "important investigation cooperation" under the sentencing guidelines for narcotics crimes). (b) The prosecutor 1) mistake of facts (as to the judgment of innocence of the court below, the part of the judgment of acquittal of the court below) K's investigative agency and the court of the court of the court below are consistent in the overall context and the credibility of each statement is recognized. However, the court below denied the credibility of the above statement and acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On January 5, 2016, the Defendant received narcotics, etc. by delivering to K without compensation a vinyl paper containing approximately 0.28ghon, which is a local mental medicine, at around 0.28ghon, even though he/she is not a narcotics handler, at around 23:30, Jan. 5, 2016, the Defendant was not a narcotics handler.

2) In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court held that the respective statements at K’s investigative agency and the court of the lower court, which are direct evidence corresponding to this part of the facts charged, have credibility to the extent that it can be recognized as true without reasonable doubt as to this part of the facts charged.

In addition, it is difficult to see that the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged, and the above facts charged were acquitted.

3) We examine the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records and the arguments of the court below for the deliberation.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2017.04.14 2016노1261

-서울북부지방법원 2016.06.07 2016노306

-서울고등법원 2017.06.16 2017노167

-수원지방법원 2017.09.06 2017노1539

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2017.03.21 2016노524