20,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

On February 23, 2012, the Defendant sold approximately 0.3g of psychotropic drugs to D, 200,000 won, in the vicinity of the road near Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, 2012.

As a result, the Defendant traded philophones.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Although the defendant did not recognize the criminal facts of the defendant's assertion in D's legal statement, D made a statement that he purchased a penphone from the defendant in the investigative agency and this court, it is judged that the contents of the statement are not only detailed and consistent, but also it is sufficiently reliable in accordance with objective data such as the details of cell phone calls.

In terms of interest, the defense counsel asserts to the effect that D might have provided false information to the defendant for a crime related to narcotics. However, D had been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a crime related to the above narcotics before testimony in this court and was sentenced to dismissal of the appeal after having been sentenced to an unreasonable sentencing. It is difficult to find reasonable grounds to accept the risk of additional punishment by pointing out perjury 1 and 2 as to the crime of this case where the sentence for the above drug-related crimes has become final and conclusive.

D. Although the Defendant’s statement and E have been made as materials that may give rise to doubt as to the credibility of the D’s statement, the Defendant made a statement to the investigative agency that “D was delivered to urge the repayment of rent,” and the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “D was sent to the Daegu people who will help to open a gambling place” in the part of the witness examination protocol of the 21st of the Defendant’s statement in the process of questioning questioning E in this court, it is inconsistent with objective materials.