However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

Defendant A, on April 6, 2013, 2013, hereinafter “2013 Highest 2942”), even though he is not a narcotics handler, was administered once by mixing approximately 0.03g of psychotropic drugs with drinking water at the residence of Busan Shipping Daegu E, 203 Dong 2512, Defendant A, at around April 20, 2013.

Defendant B administered approximately 0.03g of philophones at the above date, place, and 0.03g of philophones at a single-use injection, dilution with aquatic water, and injection into the Defendant’s left part of blood, even though he is not a narcotics handler.

Summary of Evidence

"2013 Highest 2942"

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Defendant A’s suspect interrogation protocol of the police on May 2, 2013

1. A written appraisal of expert G, H, and I prepared by the National Research and Investigation Institute;

1. Assistant table 2014 high-level 18";

1. Protocol of examination;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a table of requests for appraisal (204 pages of evidentiary records);

1. Relevant Articles of the Act on the Control of Narcotics and the Selection of Punishment: Defendants: Articles 60 (1) 2, 4 (1), and 2 subparag. 3 (b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics;

1. Defendants on probation: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants on probation and order to attend lectures: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Additional collection Defendants: The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under the proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act requires strict punishment against the Defendants in consideration of the fact that the Defendants administered each penphone and the nature of the crime is not good.

However, Defendant A did not have the same criminal record for the last ten years, and Defendant B did not have the same criminal record for the same kind, and the Defendants did not have the same criminal record for the first time, and the Defendants are sentenced to probation and lecture attendance together with the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor, and the Defendants are also sentenced to probation and lecture attendance together, and the Defendants’ age, character and behavior and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be

. Defendants and the Defendants