All
| TITLE | Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Do14609 Decided April 18, 2019【Violation of the Narcotics Control Act (Psychotropic)】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] In a case concerning concurrent crimes in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act that sets a statutory minimum sentencing range, whether it is permissible to mitigate the imprisonment term by one-half thereof by deeming that Article 55(1) of the Criminal Act does not apply (negative) [2] In the case where: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to four years of imprisonment for violating the Narcotics Control Act (Psychotropic), and the judgment became final and conclusive; (b) prior to the rendition of the foregoing final decision, the Defendant was indicted on the charge of violating the Narcotics Control Act (Psychotropic), the details of which consisted of the Defendant’s having sold psychotropic drugs once and attempted to sell psychotics drugs one more time; and (c) the lower court decided to impose an imprisonment sentence for a limited term for the said facts of crime, whose statutory penalty is either life in prison or a prison term of no less than five years, and mitigated the term pursuant to the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes and by considering the extenuating circumstances, the case holding that: (a) the sentence for the Defendant ought to have been set within the applicable sentencing guidelines range, which is set at between a prison term of 1 year and 3 months to 11 years and 3 months, pursuant to Article 56 Subparags. 4, 5 and 6 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act; (b) nevertheless, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to a prison term of six months, which falls much behind the statutory minimum applicable to the said offense, under the premise that Article 55(1) of the Criminal Act does not apply when the punishment imposed on the concurrent crimes stipulated in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is mitigated in accordance with the factors prescribed under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act; and (c) in so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the pertinent legal doctrine |
|
