However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

1. On December 2012, 2012, the Defendant, at the house of F 205, F. C, Sinscopon (hereinafter referred to as “copon”), administered copon in a way that c and D puts up approximately 0.14g of mertamscopon (hereinafter referred to as “copon”) on a daily day, and copons from the bottom of the copon by using an apparatus made as soon as possible with the growth and rapid copon.

2. On March 5, 2013, the Defendant alleged that there was no joint crime under paragraph (2) of the criminal facts in the judgment that C, D, E, and their defense counsel at the above C’s office, but in light of the specific and detailed consistent statement in G’s investigation agency and the prosecutor’s protocol of statement about E, the assertion is without merit.

In addition, approximately 0.14g of philophones was administered in the above way.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused (including G statements);

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning G and E;

1. A report on investigation (related to contents ofE meetings);

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to prepare and report a record;

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc., concerning facts constituting an offense, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of sentencing)

1. Probation, orders to provide community service and attend lectures, the main sentence of Article 62 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act, and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.;

1. The crime of this case for the reason of sentencing under the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is a case where the defendant administered phiphones with other persons on two occasions, and the necessity of punishment is a serious crime that causes serious harm to society and the national soundness due to its toxicity, and the defendant has denied some of the crimes at an investigative agency.