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

Despite the fact that the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, the Defendant administered the psychotropic drugs-related Mesofts (one philophone; hereinafter “philophones”) as follows:

1. On January 2016, the Defendant: (a) around the night of January 2016, 2016, he administered the philophone medication using two disposable injection devices, which include approximately 0.05g of the philophonephones prepared by the Defendant in advance, in a single injection room near Suwon-si, Suwon-si; and (b) in a way of injecting the remainder into his arms bloodline; and (c) in a way of injecting the remainder into his arms bloodline.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with C to administer philophones.

2. Around May 2016, the Defendant administered philophones in May 2016, at the mutual surves room near Suwon-si, Suwon-si, one of which was in the vicinity of Suwon-si, and in the same manner as C in the same manner as C in the middle of Suwon-si. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27175, May 201>

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with C to administer philophones.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of C of the protocol of interrogation of suspect to the prosecution;

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, etc., concerning the relevant criminal facts and the Selection of Punishment;

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under the proviso to Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.;

1. The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses based on the sentencing criteria: From 10 to 3 years (no person specially punished);

2. The defendant who has rendered a sentence of sentence recognizes his mistake, and has no same kind of criminal record.

However, the defendant did not only administer one's own philophones but also caused C to administer philophones twice. Among them, the defendant first saw C as a simple truth control, and made C administer philophones, taking into account the strong toxicity and harm of philophones.