10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The additional collection charge shall be equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

From June 1, 2016 to around the 10th day of the same month, the Defendant administered the merpt clocks (one philopon; hereinafter “philopon”) in an irregular manner at the Incheon and Seocheonwon (one philopon; hereinafter “Wlopon”).

Accordingly, even if the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, he administered a philophone, which is a local mental medicine.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of each police officer against the accused;

1. Part of the statement made by the police against the defendant;

1. Each response to a request for appraisal;

1. Inquiries into details of domestic currencies;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (calculated an additional collection charge);

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Selection and Management of Narcotics, Etc. concerning facts constituting an offense (the choice of imprisonment with prison labor);

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no fact that the defendant administered phiphones.

Where there is a reply to a request from the head of the National Institute for Scientific Investigation to make an appraisal of the Mesacopic ingredient was detected in the Defendant’s hair or urine of the violation of the Narcotics Control Act, barring special circumstances such as the change of hair or urine, which is a test material, or there was an error or error, in the appraisal that is the basis of the reply, it should be recognized that the Mescopic ingredient was detected in the hair or urine collected from the Defendant. Accordingly, under the rules of logic and experience, there was a fact that the Defendant administered Mescopic amscopic urine before collecting the hair or urine subject to appraisal.

Recognizing must be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do1680, Dec. 9, 1994; 2007Do10937, Feb. 14, 2008). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, namely, the defendant who recovered from around June 10, 2016.