However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Although the Defendant was not a person handling narcotics as a foreigner of the nationality of Thailand, around March 1, 2019, around 22:03, the Defendant received approximately KRW 100,000 in cash from D in the vicinity of the “C” factory located in Thailand B, and received approximately 0.1g of psychotropic drugs, psychotropic drugs, c.m. (hereinafter “peropon”). On the other hand, the Defendant continued to put in the dormitory of the above “C” factory into the glass pipe, and dyponed the smoke caused by heating the opon.

Accordingly, the Defendant purchased and administered philophones.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A copy of each protocol of suspect examination of the police about D;

1. Protocols of seizure, list of seizure, and voluntary submission (No. 65, 66 No. 5 of the evidence list);

1. An explanatory note (written request for an oral testimony and appraisal);

1. Application of investigation reports (the price for cancer transactions in narcotics and the calculation of additional collection charges) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Articles 60 (1) 2, 4 (1) 1, and 2 subparagraph 3 (b) (the point of sale and purchase of phiphonephones and the point of administration) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. under Relevant Acts concerning criminal facts, and choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

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

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for each of the instant crimes are as follows: (a) narcotics crime, such as the instant case’s sentencing, is not easy to detect due to its characteristics; (b) the risk of recidivism is high; and (c) the negative impact on society as a whole due to cryptability, toxicity, etc.; and

On the other hand, however, the defendant recognized his mistake in the investigative agency.

The defendant appears to have purchased narcotics for medication, and it does not seem to have been purchased for circulation, and only once the frequency of medication has passed.

These circumstances are considered in favor of the defendant.