logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2018.02.08 2017고단300
마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On November 27, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act in the Gwangju District Court’s net support on November 27, 2013, and completed the execution of the sentence in the Port Prison on October 13, 2014.

[2] Although the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, on February 7, 2017, around 19:49, the Defendant was able to receive approximately 2.1g of philopon from F to F in the adjoining road located in the Gosong-gun D, the Defendant collected approximately 1,00,000 won from F in response to a request for calling for a mecopic mental medicine (one philopon; hereinafter referred to as “philopon”). On the same day, around 19:55, around 19:55, the Defendant was able to receive approximately 2.1g of philopon from F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Response to a request for appraisal;

1. Previous offense record: A written reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (the confirmation of a criminal suspect's previous conviction, etc.) (F, upon the request of the criminal defendant who wants to use a phiphone, f may seek a phiphoneopon from G located in the area south of Madern, making the criminal defendant go back to G with his own money, making the criminal defendant go back to his own money, leading him to go off with his own money, and getting off his house to go back to E, and then he was waiting in advance for the criminal defendant's preparation;

G Doing the Defendant who had been in the atmosphere by moving from G to her telephones with a quantity of 2.1g, and having been administered with a penphone of 0.07g amount among them.

A consistent and concrete statement was made.

The defendant's arguments found that the contact with F was in contact with F, and because F purchased philopon and moved the philopon to E, but only moved the philopon to the damaged telephone, and it did not purchase philopon through F. However, the defendant and G on the same day.

arrow