[criminal history] On January 27, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment due to a violation of the Chemicals Control Act (snorting hallucinogenic substances) at the Sungnam support center, etc. on October 1, 2017. On May 16, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Chemicals Control Act (snorting hallucinogenic substances) and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 24, 2018.

[ criminal facts] No person shall take in, inhale, or possess for this purpose any chemical substance that causes entertainment, hallucination, or anesthesia, any substance prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around 10:05 on February 7, 2018, was in Ansan C, at the toilets No. 708 of DNA 708, tried to inhale three lusium frame containing hallucinogenic substances, by spreading three lusent ingredients into a certified plastic flusium, but did not inhale the wind of the said lusium.

As a result, the defendant tried to inhale chemicals that cause interest, hallucination, or anesthesia, which are determined by Presidential Decree.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. On-site photographs of the DNA conference;

1. A report on the results of field identification;

1. Materials on the health and safety of substances (one-day CNA cNA cropsing);

1. Previous convictions: Application of a written reply to inquiries, such as inquiries about criminal history, investigation reports (pre-determination and confirmation), copies of each written judgment, personal confinement status, and the Acts and subordinate statutes of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, 2018, No. 8151, and 11769;

1. Subparagraph 6 of Article 59 of the Chemicals Control Act and Article 22 (1) of the same Act concerning facts constituting a crime, and selection of imprisonment with labor;

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

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code to treat concurrent crimes provided that the reason for sentencing under Article 39(1) is confessions and reflects the defendant, and the crime of this case is in concurrent crimes with the crime of the previous offense committed at the same time and the crime of this case after Article 37 of the Criminal Code to be determined at the same time in consideration of the equity between the case where the defendant was tried at the same time, and other matters.