마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
Defendant is not a narcotics handler.
1. On January 27, 2015, the Defendant, in violation of the Narcotics Control Act, carried marijuana for the purpose of smoking by placing approximately 2.23 g of marijuana in the main machine in the D’s residence located in Dongdu-si C around 00:0, 2015.
2. From June 3, 2015 to around the 10th day of the same month, the Defendant administered approximately 0.05 g of the Mabcheon-si, Goyang-si E, and Pariju-si, Mabropo-si, a local mental medicine, by means of injection or drinking.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Statement made by the police with regard to D;
1. Police seizure records;
1. Investigation report (the period during which philophone components may be detected), investigation report (the date, time, and place of crime shall be specified);
1. Visits to a request for appraisal, response to a request for appraisal, and investigation into the market price of narcotics;
1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that there is no fact that philophones have been administered as stated in the judgment of the court, as stated in paragraph 2 of the judgment.
In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment, i.e., the result of the Defendant’s request for appraisal of narcotics to the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, and the result of the Defendant’s request to the Institute of Scientific Investigation for Narcotics, which led to the training of Mept amba and ambamins, and the Defendant’s side entrusted the appraisal to the National Institute of Scientific Investigation for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Defendant’s Mepta and ambamins can be detected due to the influence of taking drugs for the treatment of one’s own disease. However, considering that the chemical structure of Mebamins or ambamins differ from the chemical structure and the results of appraisal that the Defendant’s Mebamins or ambamins cannot be detected due to the interaction between drugs, it is recognized that the Defendant administered Mebacopon as criminal facts as indicated in paragraph 2 of the judgment.