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

Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

1. On May 2013, 2013, the Defendant: (a) received approximately 0.2g of psychotropic drugs from a marcule fluor (one philopon; hereinafter referred to as “philopon”); (b) obtained approximately 0.05g of philopon in a single-use injection at the same place where it is difficult for the next day after inserting approximately 0.05g of philopon into a single-use injection; (c) injected them into a arms after dilutioning their lives.

2. On June 2013, the Defendant: (a) inserted approximately 0.05g philophones into a single-use injection machine at the same place as the early patrolman on June 2013; (b) injected them into the arms after dilution with their growth.

3. On June 2013, the Defendant issued Handphones to a police officer on June 2013, 2013, at the same place as the first patrol officer on June 6, 2013, 0.05g of Handphones to E without compensation.

4. On October 2013, the Defendant: (a) inserted approximately 0.05ggs in a single-use injection machine at the same place as the Hanman’s preceding paragraph on October 2013; and (b) injected them into the arms after dilution with raw water.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A copy of the police statement concerning F;

1. Written appraisal of narcotics;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on documentary reaction tests;

1. Relevant Articles 60 (1) 2, 4 (1), and 2 subparagraph 3 (b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., for which the relevant provision of the Act and the selection of a sentence are applicable to the crime, and the choice of imprisonment

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Probation under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. was that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence in 2001 due to the administration of phiphonephones, but thereafter, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence, taking into account the following: (a) there was no same record; (b) there was no other record of crime; and (c) there is no