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

On October 8, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Seoul Central District Court on December 11, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 11, 2015. On February 9, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of suspension of execution for six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Seoul Central District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 17, 2017.

On February 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) within C’s car parked on the road near the Magdong-dong of the Government of the Republic of Korea around the middle and middle end of February 2015, and (b) 00,000 won from C’s penphones.

Accordingly, the defendant sold philophones.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. A report on investigation (Attachment of written judgments toC);

1. Each court decision (list 9 of evidence);

1. Copy of the statement made by the police to the defendant;

1. A copy of the protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against C or a copy of the protocol of public trial;

1. Previous conviction in judgment: Inquiry about criminal history and application of the text of the judgment;

1. Relevant Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2, and Article 60 of the Act on the Selection and Management of Narcotics, Etc., concerning facts constituting an offense, the selection of a sentence to imprisonment;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) shall take into account the equity in sentencing with the case where a judgment is to be rendered simultaneously with the crime of each final conviction in the judgment); this case is a case where the defendant provided a penphone to a person who purchased and administered a penphone with him/her only once, and the defendant is not a person who sells

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