마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.
30,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.
Punishment of the crime
[Criminal Records] The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Changwon District Court on August 13, 2014, and completed the execution of the sentence on June 11, 2015, and was not a narcotics handler.
[2] On November 2015, the Defendant, along with C, conspiredd with C to sell a mamper (i.e., one philopon; hereinafter “philopon”) using “D”, which is a local mental medicine, and the Defendant secured a hopon from the upper line and delivered the hopon to the purchaser of the hopon, and C posted a writing on the hopon sales of the hopon to take charge of the hopon.
Accordingly, C, from the end of November 2015 to the beginning of December 2015, 2015, up to 300,000 won of philopon to E, who posted a letter of sale of philopon to “D” at an insular place, and reported this fact, was promised to sell 300,000 won of philopon to the account designated by C around that time, and the Defendant sent 30,000 won of philopon to the account designated by C. On December 9, 2015, from around 01:0 to 02:00, while the Defendant was in company with C in the vicinity of the G located in Busan Gangseo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, while holding the above philopon amounting to 300,000 won of philop.
Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with C to sell philophones.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Each legal statement of witness E and C;
1. Protocols concerning the interrogation of suspects by each prosecutor with regard to C;
1. Investigation report (report on attachment of judgment rendered by purchasers of phiphonephones to E), indictments;
1. A previous conviction: He asserts that a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (a criminal suspect A repeated crime, report on the same record) [ although the defendant had met E at the date and time, at the place in the ruling, he did not have the fact that he sold phiphones to E in collusion with C.
In contrast, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of each judgment, i.e., C, in collusion with the Defendant in this Court.