When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

On April 17, 2012, at around 22:49, the Defendant: (a) transferred KRW 100,000 from B, upon request, to request the purchase of a psychotropic drug cambl (the “camlphone”; hereinafter referred to as “camlphone”); (b) transferred the camlphone seller to an irregular account for the use of the camlphone; (c) around April 18, 2012, the Defendant arranged the purchase of the camlphone by sending approximately 1.4g of the camlphone to a bicycle storage near the camloid located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Mapo-gu, by sending approximately 1 million to B.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning B;

1. The details of the phone call and the details of the reverse call;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (report on execution of a warrant for search and inspection);

1. Prior to the amendment by Act No. 10786, Jun. 7, 2011;

(hereinafter the same shall apply.

Articles 60(1)3, 4(1), and 2 subparag. 4(b), and selection of fines

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. proviso to Article 67 of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. subject to Additional Collection [1,218,00 won = 870,000 won (the nationwide retail price per 1 gram of penphone as of September 2013 nearest at the time of rendering a judgment) x 1.4 grams];

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, including the fact that the defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime, and the brokerage of the crime requires strict punishment in light of the toxicity of narcotics, etc., although there are circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, the defendant is the initial offender of narcotics, the defendant shows his attitude to recognize and reflect his/her criminal act, the fact that there seems to exist no benefits acquired by the defendant due to the instant crime, and that the fact of phiphone medication was not confirmed as a result of hair and urine appraisal.