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

The additional collection charge shall be equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

From January 20, 2018 to around the 30th day of the same month, the Defendant administered opphones once by inserting the volume of opphones (mertams) into a single-use injection machine, dilution them with water, or drinking them on drinking at around January 20, 2018.

"2018 Highest 3472" Defendant administered philophones by an influorous means in the Government-Si, Yangju-si, and Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu, on July 2017.

Summary of Evidence

"2018 Highest 2721"

1. Seizure records;

1. Written response to a request for appraisal, a narcotics test report, a drug reaction test report, and an appraisal report (a pages No. 141 of investigation records);

1. Each investigation report (with respect to places where phiphonephones are administered and additional collection charges are calculated). "2018 Highest 3472";

1. Seizure records;

1. Notification of the results of respectively legal appraisal of the date of inspection of base, simple reagents;

1. Application of investigation reports (report on confirmation of places where philophones are administered) Acts and subordinate statutes;

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, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [aggravating concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., Act No. 2018 highest judgment No. 2721 of the Criminal Act] among concurrent crimes;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. As to the 2018 Highest 2721

A. The Defendant’s summary of the assertion was the result of the urinal test on January 30, 2018, which led to the reaction of philophone training, but there was no actual administration of philophone around that time.

B. According to the evidence examined earlier, it is recognized that the Defendant’s 30ml of the 30ml of the dives taken around January 30, 2018 conducted an appraisal with respect to the 30ml of the dives taken by the dives from the Defendant, and the dives examination procedure or procedure of the dives examination.