Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

1. At around 20:00 on October 25, 2012, the Defendant injected approximately 0.09g of psychotropic drugs cambacule (one name, one philophone, and two camopon; hereinafter “philophone”). On October 26, 2012, around 03:00, the Defendant: (a) removed the Defendant from the above camburon “509 room”; (b) on the ground that the Defendant was aware of the administration of the camphone, and found a surveillance camera, on the ground that he was installed in the above cambule’s room, the Defendant destroyed and damaged the cambule at around 1,50,000 won in the market price of the victim’s household, computer, window, etc., owned by the said cambule’s owner; and (c) on October 26, 2015, the Defendant destroyed and damaged the camburon at the time of 30:15.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Photographs;

1. A report on the market price of the Mepta;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (report attached to a written estimate), an investigation report, and a report on the results of appraisal;

1. Articles 60 (1) 2, 4 (1), and 2 (3) (b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. under Relevant Acts concerning criminal facts, and Article 366 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The main sentence of Article 67 of the Act on the Management of Confiscated Narcotics;

1. The defendant for sentencing on the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is deemed to have led to the confession of the criminal facts of this case, to reflect his/her mistake in depth, and to have agreed with the victim of the crime of causing property damage.

However, the crime of damage to the property of this case was committed on the ground that the Defendant was aware of the fact that she was monitoring him/her while he/she administered a phiphone and found a surveillance camera. In light of such motive for the crime.