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

The Defendant received approximately 0.1 g of the instant penphone sales volume from Vietnam by concealing in the front of the F-ro in Incheon Bupyeong-gu around January 14, 2017 the following: (a) the Defendant received approximately 100,000 won of the instant penphone sales volume from Vietnam by concealing in the international unique transmission freight; (b) the Defendant received approximately 0.1g of the penphone sales volume of the said penphone from Vietnam, including the transfer of a bitphone to the bitphone sales volume, equivalent to 100,000 won, in total, from around May 11, 2017 to May 11, 2017, the Defendant received approximately 50,000 won in total, as indicated in the attached crime list.

As a result, the Defendant imported approximately 0.5 grams from Vietnam to the Republic of Korea, even though he was not a handler of narcotics by purchasing phiphones from the above person without his name, and imported approximately 0.5 g of phiphones from Vietnam to the Republic of Korea. In this part of the facts charged, the Defendant imported phiphones in collusion with the above person without his name.

In addition, Article 30 of the Criminal Code is also written.

However, the facts charged of this case are that the defendant purchased and imported a phiphone from a person who was in the name of the defendant, and the defendant's act of purchasing the phiphone constitutes the sales of a person who was in the name of the deceased and the flu

Therefore, the general provisions of the Criminal Act on accomplices do not apply to cases where two or more acts are necessary for the establishment of crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6969, Jan. 16, 2014, etc.). In this case, in the same case, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have conspired with a person in a nameless manner while importing a phiphonephones (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do7996, Sept. 10, 2015). Therefore, among the facts charged to the extent that there is no concern that substantial disadvantages may be inflicted on the Defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense, the Defendant is the said person.