Seized evidence 2 or 4 shall be confiscated.

From the defendant, 100.

The defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

1. On May 12, 2013, the Defendant administered approximately 0.03g of psychotropic drugs in a single-use injection machine (one-use philopon) on a psychotropic drug under Article 303 of the Chang-si Office C, Chang-si, Chang-si, Chang-si, Chang-si, 2013, in a way that the Defendant injected them into his/her her her crop in a single-use injection machine and dilution them with aquatic water.

2. On May 13, 2013, at around 13:00, the Defendant kept approximately 0.77g of the corridor of the third floor of the building C under the preceding paragraph in his/her co-owned with a co-owned container attached to his/her co-owned hand bags to plastic bags.

3. On May 13, 2013, at around 13:05, the Defendant kept approximately 0.03g of melting c building 303 in liquid form as a disposable injection machine and possessed it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning D;

1. Seizure records;

1. Report on investigation (verification of the results of appraisal of the suspect's urine and confiscated narcotics);

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to drillings (a copy of the table for expert opinion request and the training of urines);

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1), and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc., for which the relevant Article of the Act on the Punishment of Criminal Facts and the Selection of Punishment (the medication of each phiphone, the point of possession, and the selection of imprisonment

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

1. The main sentence of Article 67 of the Act on the Management of Confiscated Narcotics;

1. The proviso to Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. subject to Additional Collection (10,000 won for medication once x once);

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order include six times from 1988 to 2009 that the defendant was punished as a narcotics crime, and five times from which the execution of imprisonment was completed, it is inevitable to sentence a sentence even in order to reduce each of the crimes of this case, and to cut back the dependence on the defendant's narcotics.

However, the punishment was determined in consideration of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant's mistake is against the defendant, and the intention of the suspension of narcotics is expressed.

order for any reason above.