The defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

피고인은 2018. 3. 14. 11:50경 천안시 서북구 B건물, C호 피고인의 집에서 인터넷 랜덤채팅 어플인 D을 통해 ‘E’라는 아이디로 졸피뎀 6정을 25만원에 판매하고자 ‘머그면기절ㅍ’이라는 글을 게시하였고, 이 글을 보고 실제로 졸피뎀을 구입할 것처럼 가장하여 연락한 경찰관에게 F 인근에서 만나 졸피뎀을 건네주기로 약속한 다음 같은 날 14:00경 평택시 G에 있는 F 광장 자전거보관대 앞에서 향정신성의약품인 졸피뎀 6정을 25만원에 판매하고자 하였으나 평택경찰서 마약과 소속 수사관에게 적발되어 미수에 그쳤다.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Records and lists of police seizure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing requests for appraisal;

1. It shall be considered under favorable circumstances that there was no record of the same kind of crime for the reason of sentencing under Article 61(3) and (1)5, Article 4(1) and Article 2 subparag. 3(d) of the Act on the Optional of Narcotics, Etc. concerning the crime, and the fact that there was no much amount of stroke-type method which had been tried to sell after having committed an attempted crime, etc.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant committed a crime without being aware of during the period of parole, and that the defendant escaped for a long time without being absent from a trial, the liability for the crime is not somewhat weak.

The sentence shall be determined as per the Disposition, taking into account such circumstances as well as various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case.