Seized evidence 1 or 2 shall be forfeited from the defendant.

from the defendant.

On January 6, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to one year in Busan District Court for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and on September 26, 2012, the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, who completed the execution of the sentence in Busan Detention Center.

1. On November 3, 2013, around 18:00, the Defendant inserted approximately 0.03 grams of psychotropic drugs in a single-use injection machine, and melted them with water, into the psychotropic drugs, and injected them into the blood banks.

2. On November 6, 2013, around 17:15, the Defendant administered approximately 0.03 grams in a restaurant toilet where the trade name in Busan Shipping Daegu D is unknown, in the same manner as the above paragraph 1.

3. On November 6, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 17:30 on November 6, 2013, the four stories of the above Ctel, in which approximately 9.63 grams of philophonephones are divided, carried a letter bag and vinyl bags into a posite machine.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Notification of appraisal results of narcotics prepared by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office scientific investigation officers;

1. Reporting on investigation (report, etc. on photographing articles, etc.);

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records and investigation reports (current status of personal identification);

1. Articles 60 (1) 2, 4 (1) 1, and 2 subparagraph 3 (b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. of Specific Crimes;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

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

1. The main sentence of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics;

1. The reason for sentencing under the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (based on the market price of 100,000 won for a one-time medication) was sentenced to punishment for the same crime, and the defendant again committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime. The amount of penphones possessed by the defendant at the time of committing the crime of this case reaches a considerable amount.