(영문) 창원지방법원 2013.05.10 2013노417 | 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 2013.05.10 2013노417

마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability with mental disorder due to mental disorder, such as mental fission, depression, etc.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant has a mental illness such as a mental illness, and the defendant has been treated with a mental disorder due to a long time of the dependence on carpets and other interest issues, or a compactic mental disorder.

However, in full view of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime and the circumstances after the crime, the Defendant did not have the ability or ability to make a decision to discern things due to the foregoing mental illness at the time of the instant crime.

It does not seem to be in a state or weak.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Although there are no circumstances to consider the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing in light of the following: (a) the Defendant voluntarily surrenders to the instant crime and reflects the Defendant’s mistake in depth through his confinement life; (b) the Defendant’s health is not good; and (c) the Defendant seeks the Defendant’s wife to endeavor to prevent recidivism; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime due to the same kind of crime; (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime due to the same kind of crime; (d) balance with other similar cases, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the instant crime; and (e) circumstances after the instant crime, etc., all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and circumstances after the crime, are too unreasonable. Therefore, the

3. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.07.22 2015노1185

-서울고등법원 2013.11.01 2013노2823

-창원지방법원 2014.07.23 2014노1171

-부산지방법원 2015.09.25 2015노1407

-수원지방법원 2013.05.30 2013노1179