2. 60,000 won shall be collected from the defendant and the amount equivalent to the additional collection charge shall be collected.

[Criminal Records] On October 29, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (narcotics) at the Seoul Central District Court on the grounds of a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 4, 2016.

[2] Around May 29, 2015, the Defendant issued marijuana by giving approximately six grams to F without compensation in front of the Defendant’s home located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, even if the Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of F;

1. F’s statement made by the Prosecutor’s Office (F’s statement in this law and investigative agency) with respect to F is not consistent and contradictory in light of the following: (a) the statement made by the Prosecutor’s Office on the charge of the instant crime at the time of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant’s motive and motive; (c) the place of delivery

However, with respect to the part that “the Defendant and a single-person came to know that the Defendant was in possession of marijuana”, the possibility that the Defendant had heard from G in the course of meeting with G and made a statement to an investigation agency as it is, cannot be ruled out.

However, it is difficult to see that, even though the ordinary defendant was in possession of marijuana and the F was frequently given and received marijuana from the defendant, it is hard to see that the defendant was made a statement by leaving the circumstances that the defendant came to know that he was in possession of marijuana at the time of concealment.

In addition, in light of the frequency and frequency of calls between the defendant and F at the time and the place of call, it is not visible to simply divide conversations at the time, and it is also consistent with objective evidence.

B. Before ASEAN informed the Defendant, G on two occasions

In light of the circumstances around the time of information such as confirming whether the Defendant first informed himself/herself, it does not seem to be false information.

1. Currency details;

1. Criminal records as stated in the judgment: Investigation report (Evidence No. 12 of the evidence list) and the application of attached statutes;

1. Criminal facts;