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

Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

1. On July 2018, the Defendant, at the residence of the Defendant located in Busan Seo-gu, Busan Seo-gu, 2018, administered crophones by inserting cambanes (one philophones; hereinafter “philophones”) 0.03g in a single-use injection machine, dilution with paradics, and administering camphones in a way of injection into arms.

2. On September 12, 2018, at around 01:00, the Defendant administered clophones by inserting approximately 0.03g of clophones into a single-use injection machine, dilution with raw water, and administering clophones in a way of injecting them into arms.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on narcotics appraisal;

1. Articles 60 (1) 2, 4 (1) 1, and 2 subparagraph 3 (b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. under the relevant Act on criminal facts, and selection of a sentence to imprisonment;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the observation of protection;

1. The proviso to Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “Criminal Procedure Act”) under Article 334(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the said Act, even though the Defendant administered phiphones twice, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the fact that there was no same criminal record during the last twenty years, and is determined as above in light of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and all other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing