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

750,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

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

The defendant accepted the request from C for receipt of money to the person who bought marijuana.

1. Sale or smoking of marijuana by a police officer at the beginning of 2016, 7.

On July 2016, the Defendant: (a) 150,000 won from E and F in the residence of the Defendant, located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu D and 102, and (b) 1g of marijuana, he received from C in return.

Since then, the Defendant, along with E, F, and C, dump about 1g of marijuana on the smoking machine, dump it by attaching the fire, and dump.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with C, sold marijuana, and smoked marijuana in collusion with C, E, and F.

2. On July 2016, 2016, a person selling marijuana and a smoking suspect was 150,000 won or more from E or F in the residence of the accused as stated in paragraph 1 of the Police Officers, and as a consideration, 1g of marijuana, he or she received from C.

| 후 피고인은 E, F, C와 함께 대마 약 1g을 대마 흡연 기구 위에 올려놓고 불을 붙여 번갈아 가며 연기를 들이마셨다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with C, sold marijuana, and smoked marijuana in collusion with C, E, and F.

3. Sale or smoking of marijuana by a policeman on July 2016.

On July 2016, 2016, the Defendant 1,50,000 won from E and F in the Defendant’s residence as stated in paragraph 1, and 1g of marijuana received from C in return.

Since then, the Defendant, along with E, F, and C, dump about 1g of marijuana on the smoking machine, dump it by attaching the fire, and dump.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with C, sold marijuana, and smoked marijuana in collusion with C, E, and F.

4. On August 2016, 2016, the Defendant sold marijuana and smoking suspects: (a) took 150,000 won from E and F in the Defendant’s residence on August 1, 2016, and, in return, took about 1g of marijuana received from C.

Since then, the Defendant, along with E, F, and C, dump about 1g of marijuana on the smoking machine, dump it by attaching the fire, and dump.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with C, sold marijuana, and smoked marijuana in collusion with C, E, and F.

5. Sale or smoking of marijuana by a policeman on September 2016.

On September 22, 2016, at around 22:00, the Defendant 150,000 won from E and F in the Defendant’s residence as stated in paragraph 1, and 1g of marijuana, as a consideration, received from C.

Since then, the Defendant, along with E, F, and C, dump about 1g of marijuana on the smoking machine, dump it by attaching the fire, and dump.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with C, sold marijuana, and smoked marijuana in collusion with C, E, and F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The third prosecutorial statement against the accused (including the E and the F large part);

1. Copy of each protocol of suspect examination of E and F by the prosecution;

1. Copy of the prosecutor's statement concerning C;

1. Investigation report (the analysis of currency details - the first one), investigation report (the attached details of mutual currency) (the attached details 1);

1. Written appraisal of narcotics;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 59(1)7 and 3 subparag. 9 of the former Narcotics Control Act (Amended by Act No. 14019, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 61(1)4(a) and Article 3 subparag. 10(a) of the former Narcotics Control Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 14019, Feb. 3, 2016)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.") due to the sale of marijuana by a policeman at the early September 2016,

1. Suspension of execution;

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

1. Additional collection:

The proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

[Calculation of Additional Charges] (1) Total sale amount of marijuana: 750,000 won (=150,000 won X5)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year to 45 years;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crimes and concurrent crimes 1 and 2 concurrent crimes - Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (marijuth) by selling marijuana;

[Scope of Recommendation] Trading Arrangement, etc. < Act No. 2> Basic Area (1-2 years from 1 year to 2 years)

【Special Convicted Person】

(b) Final sentence scope according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: One year to three years (two years of imprisonment with prison labor which is the upper limit of the scope of punishment for the first concurrent crimes). One year and one-third of the upper limit of the scope of punishment for the second concurrent crimes and eight months of imprisonment with prison labor which is the upper limit of the scope of punishment for the second concurrent crimes); and

3. Determination of sentence: In the case of a crime related to narcotics, etc., for which one-year suspended sentence is suspended, one-year imprisonment, not only prevents the body and mind of an individual, but also causes harm to the national health or other crimes, etc., which may have a serious adverse impact on society as a whole. The Defendant sold and smoked marijuana in about 5g, and the frequency of the crime, the type and quantity of the narcotics purchased, etc. are considerable, the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not weak.

However, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant both led to the confession of his crime and reflects on his criminal punishment, the fact that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment, and the fact that the defendant seems to have little pecuniary benefits from the crime of this case, etc., the punishment shall be determined as above in light of all the factors of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, family environment, motive for the crime of this case, and circumstances before

Judges Jong-jin

Judges Kim Jae-han