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

To order the accused to attend social service for 80 hours and drug treatment for 40 hours.

5,320,00 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge shall be ordered to be paid provisionally.

1. Purchasing marijuana;

A. On March 12, 2016, at around 14:55, the Defendant transferred KRW 1.2 million as the purchase price for marijuana to a bank account in the name of C used by B, and then received approximately 10g of marijuana from B at the Famno, located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul.

Accordingly, the Defendant purchased approximately 100,000 grams from B to 1.2 million won.

B. On April 14, 2016, around 23:12, 2016, the Defendant remitted KRW 900,000 as the purchase price for marijuana to the G bank account in the name of C used by B, and then received approximately 9g of marijuana from B on the street around the F.

Accordingly, the defendant purchased about 90,000 won for marijuana from B.

2. Sale of marijuana;

On June 2, 2015, at around 00:39, the Defendant transferred KRW 200,000 to the G bank account in the name of the Defendant using the purchase price for marijuana from H, and around that time, the Defendant saw approximately 20,000 won to H in the street near the convenience store located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government locked-dong.

Accordingly, the Defendant sold approximately KRW 200,000 to H about 12 times from the above date and time to April 19, 2016, as indicated in the list of crimes, sold approximately KRW 47 grams to H in KRW 5,320,000, as well as KRW 200,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each police interrogation protocol of the defendant, H, and B (including the substitute part);

1. Details of transactions (Evidence Nos. 1 to 3), account details (Evidence No. 4 to 8), and account details (C) of the target account;

1. Investigative reports (Attachment of printed materials, such as H judgments), investigation reports (report on the market price of marijuana), non-prosecutions, written decisions on non-prosecutions, written indictments (Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office 2018-type 47970);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 59(1)7 and 3 subparag. 9 of the former Narcotics Control Act (Amended by Act No. 14019, Feb. 3, 2016)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (in the case of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed by the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.) following the purchase of marijuana on March

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Orders to provide community service and attend lectures;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

The proviso to Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

【Basis for Calculation of Surcharge 3】

○ Paragraph 2 of the holding: 5.320,000 won for marijuana sold by the defendant

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year to 45 years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crimes and crimes in Articles 2 and 3: Crimes in violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (marijuth) through the sale of marijuana;

[Determination of Types] Type 2, such as assistance in the trade of narcotics (mariju, item (b) and (c), etc.)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, Imprisonment from 1 to 2 years

(b) Scope of recommending punishment based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: One year to three years (three or more concurrent crimes, and thus, the upper limit of the scope of punishment for respective concurrent crimes (two years) shall be added to 1/2 (1 year) and 1/3 (8 months)).

3. Determination of sentence: The sentence shall be determined as per the order, taking into account the following circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the process of growth, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., as well as various factors of sentencing specified in the arguments in the instant case, and the scope of recommended sentences on the sentencing criteria.

○ Unfavorable Conditions

In the case of narcotics-related crimes, it is not easy to detect narcotics due to the characteristics of medication, and there is a high possibility that the risk of recidivism and other crimes are likely to be committed due to decliability, heavy toxicity, etc., and social harm is very high. The defendant trades a lot of marijuana over a considerable period of time, and the criminal liability is very heavy.

○ favorable circumstances

Defendant’s mistake from an investigative agency to this court is against the law. It seems that there is no significant benefit from the sale of marijuana in this case, and there seems to have been no distribution of marijuana to many and unspecified persons. It appears that he/she has the intention to take a single drug due to marriage and the birth of his/her child, and his/her family, including his/her parents, are also leading. There is no criminal record except the juvenile protective disposition issued in 2002.

Awards and Decorations for Judges

Judges Lee Jong-deok

2) The Defendant stated to the effect that “mariana, which was sold to H under Paragraph (2) of this Article, was wholly purchased from BO under Paragraph (1) of this Article.” The Prosecutor stated to the effect that, at the time of purchase and sale of marijuana, the number of its purchases did not exceed the quantity of its sales, there was a gap at the time of the purchase and sale, and there was a difficulty in specifying the timing, place, and quantity of the purchase of marijuana prior to the entries in the facts charged. The same applies to the Defendant’s statement. The reason why the Defendant did not prosecute the smoking of the marijuana was not detected from the Defendant’s urine, the drug ingredients were not detected from the Defendant’s mouth, the date, place, and the smoking amount was difficult to specify the number of the smoking amount.

3) The confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is not aimed at depriving profits from criminal acts, but rather is a disposition of punitive nature. Thus, even if no profits have been acquired from such criminal act, its value shall be collected. However, the scope of collection under the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. shall be limited to where the defendant's series of acts handling the same narcotics constitute separate crimes, and its value shall not be collected separately for each act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do15127, Jan. 26, 2012). In addition, the defendant's statement in the above legal principles, as seen above, that the marijuana sold to H under paragraph (2) of this Article is purchased from BO under Paragraph (1) of the wholly holding that the defendant purchased marijuana and then sold it again, it shall not be presumed that the purchase price should be calculated separately based on the transaction price.