However, from the date of the final judgment of this case, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

Defendants are not narcotics handlers.

1. Defendant A

A. On August 20, 2015, at around 14:10, the Defendant, at around 10, 2015, injected D Innives No. 102, and 0.03g of philophonephones contained in a disposable injection machine, and administered them in a manner of injecting into the left arms bloodline.

B. On August 20, 2015, at around 20:00, the Defendant: (a) dumped 0.03g of philophones contained in a disposable injection machine; and (b) administered them in a way of injecting them into the bloodline of the left arms.

(c)

On February 15, 2016, at around 20:0, the Defendant dived Fel203 in E at around 20:0, and hopon 0.03g in a disposable injection machine, and administered it in a way of injecting it into the left arms.

2. Defendant B

A. On August 20, 2015, the Defendant purchased and traded approximately KRW 0.1g 1,50,000 from H in the street in the vicinity of G in the Papju City, on August 20, 2015.

B. On August 20, 2015, around 14:10, the Defendant: (a) dumped 102 philophones containing a disposable injection machine with approximately 0.03g of philophones; (b) administered them by means of injecting them to the left blood cells.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each of the Defendants’ respective legal statements (excluding No. 2. A of the judgment below)

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

1. Statement made to I by the police;

1. The appraisal report on each narcotic drug, each gene appraisal report, and the suspect examination report;

1. On-site photographs and photographs;

1. Investigation report (calculated of a surcharge) [Defendant B] shall be decided;

2. (a) In relation to paragraph (1), it asserts to the effect that there was only purchase of a philopon from Ha on the same day, and that there was no purchase from H.

On May 4, 2016, 2016, the Defendant voluntarily attended the investigative agency on May 4, 2016, to purchase a phiphone to G nearby the day on which the phiphone was administered, the Defendant called the bridge, and the Defendant received a bridge.

The statement stating that it refers to the following types of philophone packaging;