A person shall be appointed.

Attorney in charge 00, 000, 000, 000, 000

Article 00 (Private Ship for Defendant A)

Attorney in charge 000,000

Law Firm (LLC) 00 (private ships for Defendant B)

Attorney in charge 000, 000, 000

Provided, That with respect to Defendant B, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years.

Defendant B shall be put on probation and shall be ordered to take an 80-hour pharmacologic course.

From Defendant A, KRW 179, 620, 00, and KRW 11,560, and KRW 00 from Defendant B shall be collected respectively.

1. Defendants’ status, etc.

Defendant A is a medical practitioner handling narcotics, who established and operated a medical institution in Seoul from 2002 to 00 won, and Defendant B is an entertainment tavern worker.

Defendant A used propool while conducting a simple cosmetic surgery such as Kapyo, etc. since several years ago. Proppool has a hall and a correct effect as a general anesthesia, and there may occur side effects such as respiratory suppression and satisfy relationship, depending on the volume of medicine, combat medication, sick medicine, etc., and where used continuously and repeatedly, Defendant A was a psychotropic drug with dependence or addiction. As a medical expert, Defendant A had shown physical, psychological dependence, or addiction symptoms on propool for a long time, such as where some customers who find the hospital have been satched and actively demanded to administer propool regardless of the procedure, and thus, they did not use propool while conducting a simple cosmetic surgery without any need for general anesthesia. Furthermore, since February 1, 2011, he was designated as a propool drug and used for any purpose other than medical treatment pursuant to relevant statutes.

The fact that the psychotropic drugs management ledger should be prepared and kept was well known.

Defendant B was addicted to propool since spring in 201 and administered propool at various hospitals located in Gangnam-gu, including the above 00 won operated by Defendant A.

2. Defendants’ co-principal conduct

Despite the fact that no medical practitioner handling narcotics, etc. has administered a psychotropic drug for any purpose other than his duties, the Defendant A, a medical practitioner handling narcotics, administered the propool, along with the Defendant B, as follows:

At the above 00 won on March 10, 201, Defendant 1 administered approximately 64 propool in a way that he was administering a procedure, such as LLD (local decilation) that does not need to be contaminated with a 000 person who was found at a hospital for the purpose of administering propool for the purpose of administering propool, and was administering propool 64 in a way that he was found to be dead in a beer for cropoma. From around the above time.

1. From 15. up to 15., Defendant B, knowing that he was a propool addict, was a propool addict, iced cosmetic surgery and administered propool in total 28 times in the above manner.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to administer propool, which is psychotropic drugs, habitually for purposes other than business purposes.

3. Defendant A

(a) Points of habitual medication for any purpose other than business affairs;

Despite the fact that no medical practitioner handling narcotics, etc. has administered a psychotropic drug for any purpose other than his duties, the Defendant, a medical practitioner handling narcotics, administered the propool of the psychotropic drug as follows:

On February 1, 2011, the Defendant administered approximately 40 square meters in a way of beer injection to arms blood cells while administering LLD (local de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-con- re-con- re-con- re-con- re-con- re-con- re-con- re-con- re-con

23. Along with the knowledge that he/she is a propool addict, he/she administered a propool over a total of 243 times to 10 persons, including 000, by the same method.

Accordingly, the Defendant administered propool, which is a psychotropic drug, habitually for purposes other than duties.

(b) A medical practitioner handling narcotics, etc. who has not prepared a register of psychotropic drugs shall, in the register of psychotropic drugs, prepare and keep a book of receipt of psychotropic drugs in order to administer, or provide for administration, psychotropic drugs, accurately record the place of purchase, the quantity of purchase, medical treatment, the quantity of use, and the quantity in stock on each date.

(1) On July 4, 2012, the Defendant purchased propool 200 disease (20ml, total 4,000ml, total 4,00ml) psychotropic drugs at the above 00 ml, but omitted the purchase itself in the psychotropic drug management ledger.

(2) On August 9, 2012, the Defendant purchased propool 5 disease (20ml, total 100ml, 20ml) psychotropic drugs, and propool 250 disease (20ml, total 5,000ml, 20ml, total 5,000ml) on February 5, 2013, but omitted the purchase itself in the psychotropic drug management ledger.

Accordingly, the suspect did not prepare the psychotropic drug management ledger properly.

C. Points of unauthorized Destruction of psychotropic drugs

If a medical practitioner handling narcotics, etc. intends to dispose of narcotics due to deterioration, corruption, destruction, effective period, or due to a lapse of the time limit for use, inventory management, or storage of narcotics, etc., he/she shall discard them after submitting to the competent permitting agency an application for disposal of the drugs, etc. (1) from September 28, 2010 to September 3, 2012, the Defendant arbitrarily discarded at least KRW 00, 151,000,000, which remains after being used by the customers, without submitting an application for disposal of the narcotics, etc. to the head of 00.

(2) From February 1, 2011 to September 3, 2012, the Defendant arbitrarily discarded at KRW 00, propool 3,811, left after being used for customers, without submitting an application for disposal of accident narcotics, etc. to the head of 00.

Accordingly, the Defendant arbitrarily discarded the unstroke and propool, which are psychotropic drugs.

4. Defendant B

(a) Joint offenses with doctors of 000;

00 is a medical practitioner handling medical affairs, who is a doctor operating "000 won" in Seoul located.

On January 9, 2012, the Defendant demanded 000,000 won, “the 000 square meters above,” to administer propool, for the purpose of medication, to “the face cata in a state of anesthesia”; and 000, known such circumstances, the Defendant administered propool over 48 times in total, as listed in the [Attachment] List (3] from around the above to September 25, 2012, by having the 000, known of such circumstances administer propool 35 square meters in a manner of refining in the Defendant’s arms.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with 000 doctors, administered propool, a psychotropic drug, habitually for purposes other than duties.

(b) Joint offenses with doctors of 000;

From 000 medical practitioners handling narcotics, etc. outside the hospital, the Defendant administered propool as follows:

(1) Around September 15, 2012, the Defendant administered 600,000 won, a doctor, to 000,000 p.m., propool 3 diseases (20 mll per disease) by having the Defendant spaced with his arms. (2) On September 16, 2012, the Defendant: (3) administered propool 3 disease (20 ml per disease) by having 00,000 p.m., a doctor spaced with his arms; (3) around September 27, 2012, the Defendant had 100 p.m., a doctor, spaced with the Defendant’s dwelling at 00 p.m.; and (800 p.m., a doctor spaced with the Defendant’s 1 million p.m. in a way of having the Defendant spaced with his arms (200 m.).

(4) On September 28, 2012, at around 00: (10:0, the Defendant administered propool 2 disease (50 mp. per disease) in a way that the Defendant had 00,000 p.m., a doctor, 1 million won, and had 00 p.m. c. inc. inc., the Defendant administered propool, a psychotropic drug, for any purpose other than business in collusion with 000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects against the Defendants, 000, and 000

1. Statement of statement by the prosecution on B, 00, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, and 1. Each investigation report, and notification of the results of each assessment of narcotics;

1. Habituality of the judgment; Habitual recognition of the defendants in light of their dose recovery, period, distance between medication, etc.;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant A: Articles 61(2)7, 5(1), and 4(1)1 of the Narcotics Control Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act ( comprehensively referred to as imprisonment), Article 64 Subparag. 2, and Article 11(2) of the Narcotics Control Act, Article 64 Subparag. 5, and Article 12(2) of the Narcotics Control Act

Defendant B: Articles 61(2)7, 5(1), 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3(d) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.; Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant B: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Probation and community service order;

Defendant B: each criminal law Article 62-2

1. Additional collection:

The proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

Grounds for sentencing

[Determination of Type] Medition, simple possession, etc. of narcotics; marijuana; d. and e.

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations: In the case of habitual offenders

[Scope of Recommendation] 10 months - 2 years

【Determination of Sentence】

○○ Unfavorable Normals: The Defendants, in light of the fact that there is no way to commit the instant crime, such as medication through repeated medication within a short period of time, and the frequency of medication or the volume of medication, etc., Defendant A, as a doctor, has sufficiently known the fact that there was increased number of patients suffering from the harm caused by the misuse and abuse of propool at a hospital, etc., and Defendant A, upon introduction that he administered propool and found KRW 00, including Defendant B, etc., who had been addicted to the administration of the Defendant, had already known that patients including the Defendant B, etc., were addicted to the administration of propopool and found the number of patients suffering from a simple medication for purposes other than medical treatment, but had been aware that there was an unnecessary procedure to avoid the law on the control of narcotics, etc., or that the treatment required by the patients was an unnecessary procedure to administer propool, and thus, attempted to obtain additional medication from the patients through an illegal act, such as an act of purchasing additional volume of profits in excess of their daily medication.

The favorable circumstances of ○○: (a) there is no record of punishment for the same crime before the Defendants committed the instant crime; (b) the Defendants’ commission of the crime is a simple medication; and (c) the recognition of the illegality of the medication seems to have been relatively weak; and (d) the Defendants’ awareness of the illegality of the administration of psychotropic drugs seems not to have been re-offending; and (b) the Defendants’ age, environment, occupation, circumstances after the instant crime, etc. are considered and sentenced to punishment as ordered by the order, taking into account all sentencing factors indicated in the instant records, such as the age, occupation, and circumstances after the instant crime.