A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.
Punishment of the crime
Defendant is not a narcotics handler.
On February 2, 2016, at around 22:00, the Defendant: (a) put approximately 0.03g of Metetopops (one philoopops) in a single-use injection instrument, which is a local mental medicine, into the Ecompops (one philoops) and administered phiphones in the way of injection into the arms.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement of the protocol concerning the interrogation of the accused by the prosecution;
1. Each protocol of seizure, each report on investigation (specific time and place of crime), and each statement of reply to a request for appraisal;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on images of photographs;
1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Selection and Management of Narcotics, Etc. concerning facts constituting an offense (the choice of imprisonment with prison labor);
1. Reasons for sentencing under the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. [the scope of punishment under law] 1 month or 10 years of imprisonment [the scope of punishment under law] 3 years of imprisonment [the determination of the territory of recommendation] / [the scope of punishment under Article 67 (b) and (c)] / The scope of recommendation] / 10 months or 2 years / the scope of recommendation] / General circumstances : At least two times of suspension of execution - The affirmative social relation is clear [the decision of sentence] - The defendant has a positive social relation [the decision of sentence] - The defendant has been under several criminal punishments, and the defendant has committed the crime of this case even if he was punished for the same kind of crime, the defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment: Provided, That there is no circumstance to deem that the defendant habitually administers narcotics on one occasion, the defendant does not have any duty to recommend the defendant's children more favorable to the defendant, and the defendant has to take into account the age and condition of punishment after the sentence.