173 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

On January 14, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Seoul High Court (hereinafter “Seoul High Court”) and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 15, 2016.

1. No person, other than a handler of narcotics, may use any psychotropic drug;

On December 1, 2014, the Defendant, even if not a narcotics handler, put into a coffee 1, ethyl x (10mg) with a view to rapeing the victim E (n, 25 years old) who refused sexual intercourse, was prescribed for the purpose of treatment of scarcitys, and was possessed by him for treatment of scars (10mg) with a scars (10mg) with a scars that contain a stroke m, and caused the victim not aware of it to drink the said coffee.

Accordingly, the defendant used a local mental medicine.

2. The Defendant attempted to rape, at the time, at the place specified in paragraph 1, in a manner and at the same time and place, franchising coffees that included the above guidance to the surface of the water and cutting off the clothes of the victim in an unsatisfyed state, but was attempted to commit rape on the ground that the victim was in the middle of her life.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the prosecution and the police concerning E;

1. Interview CCTV images, etc., response to requests for appraisal, prescriptions, etc.;

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: Application of each of the statutes of one copy of the judgment;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 300, 297 (the attempted rape) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, and Articles 61(1)5, 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(d) of the Narcotics Control Act (the use of a native mental medicine and the choice of imprisonment);

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. The latter part of Article 39(1) of the Exemption Criminal Act (the principle of equity in the case where a judgment was rendered at the same time as the final judgment in the judgment; however, the defendant reflects the crime of this case in depth and wishes for the injured person to find the Defendant’s wife; and the defendant’s committing the crime of this case on March 16, 2015.