(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.04.12 2017노3583 | 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) 창원지방법원 2018.04.12 2017노3583

마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is highly reliable. Accordingly, according to the D’s statement, following the D’s statement, the Defendant sufficiently recognizes the fact that the Defendant sold D 3g of 3g Handphones to D on November 2015, KRW 500,000,000 to D, and KRW 2g 60,000,000,000 to Police Officer on February 2016.

2. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct deliberation adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of the statement made by the witness at the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court’s first instance court’s evidence.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial and the result of further examination of evidence conducted by the court of first instance until the closing of oral proceedings, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). ① The lower court did not submit any objective evidence other than D’s statement; ② D’s statement on the process in which D was delivered to the defendant, and the process in which D purchased a cellphone, including the phonephone, ③ there is lack of credibility, ③ there is no criminal charge related to the Defendant’s mental medicine, while D’s statement on the grounds that it is not a reasonable doubt that the Defendant had been aware of other facts charged.

On the ground that it is difficult to view the instant facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

The judgment of the court below is duly adopted and examined by the court below.

참조판례

-대법원 2012. 6. 14. 선고 2011도5313 판결

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2018.01.18 2017노1450

-전주지방법원 2017.01.12 2016노954

-대전지방법원 2017.01.12 2016노2838

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.26 2016노120

-수원지방법원 2017.01.20 2016노5353