53,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

1. On July 2012, the Defendant purchased approximately 0.4g 50,000 won of the psychotropic drugs, which were psychotropic drugs in a single-use injection machine, from E, in the street near the D Hospital located in the Southern-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and purchased approximately 0.4g of 50,000 won.

2. On August 2012, 2012, the Defendant purchased approximately 0.1g of philopon from E from the Defendant’s residence, Nam-gu, Incheon, Seoul, to KRW 50,000,000, and immediately added approximately 0.1g of philopon to a one-time injection machine, added it to the said philopon into a first-time injection machine, and injected the philopon into one’s arms bloodline.

3. On August 2012, 2012, the Defendant: (a) carried tobacco in his/her residence, carried approximately 0.5g of marijuana in his/her residence; (b) made two expenses of marijuana tobacco; and (c) smoked in a way of smoking with fire attached to E in his/her toilets.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement made by the prosecution E and G among the suspect interrogation records of the accused;

1. E prosecutorial statement;

1. A criminal investigation report (report on the market price of narcotics, such as Mesptopers);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing requests for appraisal;

1. The punishment of Articles 60 (1) 2, 4 (1), and 2 subparagraph 3 (b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (the psychotropic drug trade and the points of medication), Articles 61 (1) 4 (a), 31 subparagraph 10 (the points of smoking marijuana) and the choice of imprisonment for each crime;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is that the defendant recognized a crime and commits a crime against the wrongness is considered to be the sentencing materials that are favorable to the defendant. However, even though the defendant had been sentenced to two years of imprisonment for the same kind of crime in 2004, the defendant committed the crime in this case, even though he had been sentenced to two years of suspended sentence for the same crime in 204, the above crime was not committed in addition to the previous criminal records, but