However, as to the Defendants for three years from the date of the final judgment of this case, the Defendants are above.

Defendants are not authorized to handle narcotics.

1. The Defendants conspired, around October 20, 2012, purchased approximately 4g U.S. dollars 200 U.S. dollars from G, psychotropic drugs, JWH-018 and its similar body (hereinafter “Sphas”).

2. At around 15:00 on October 27, 2012, the Defendants purchased approximately 2 g of spice from G from the stairs of the first floor of the Haak-si, Doducheon-si, Haok-si to USD 100 each.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A copy of the protocol of interrogation of the police officer G;

1. The details of call calls used by the Defendants and G

1. Details of text messages between G and each of the Defendants

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the calculation table of penalty surcharges;

1. The Defendants: Articles 58 (1) 3, 3 subparagraph 5, and 2 subparagraph 3 (a) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of purchasing ices and the choice of limited imprisonment), Articles 58 (1) 3 and 3 subparagraph 5 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and subparagraph 3 (a) (the point of purchasing ices and the choice of limited imprisonment) of Article 2 of the same Act;

1. Defendants from among concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of each Criminal Act (limited to concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (referring to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Narcotics, Etc., of 18 October 2012)

1. Defendants subject to discretionary mitigation: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following favorable circumstances shall be considered among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Defendants subject to suspended execution: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following factors are repeated for the reasons for sentencing);

1. The Defendants: Reasons for sentencing under the proviso to Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act [the proviso to Article 67 [the proviso to Article 222,200 won = USD 200 in actual Sphphas purchase price, USD 1,00 in exchange rate ($ 1,111%) as of March 19, 2013 near the date of sentencing, and the Defendants’ internal purchase of drugs on October 18, 2012 shall be additionally collected, deeming that each person was purchased on their own medication, respectively].

1. Legal provisions;