A and Defendant C shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months.

except that this judgment.

1. around August 2012, Defendant C and B sold 600g of the hemp plant seeds to A who sought hemp seeds for the purpose of taking in the F Oriental Medicine operated by Defendant C in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to sell and sell the hemp seeds while knowing that the said A intended to take the hemp seeds.

2. A around August 2012, the Defendant: (a) exceeded the hemp seed coats of the hemp plant purchased, as described in paragraph (1), within a 1 ton truck parked in front of the remains-gu, Ansan-si; and (b) collected the hemp seed coats of the size and quantity of the saw, in a pipe made by inserting the hemp seed coats of the hemp plant into a pipe made of the day for household use, and smoked the hemp seed by cutting the tobacco into a smoke as if the tobacco were smoking.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement, Defendant B and C’s partial legal statement

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Police seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report the market price related to additional collection charges;

1. Defendant A of the relevant criminal facts: Articles 61 (1) 4 (a) and 3 subparagraph 10 of the Narcotics Control Act, Articles 61 (1) 4 (c) and 3 (1) 4 (c) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., Defendant B and C: Articles 61 (1) 4 (c) and 3 (10) of the Narcotics Control Act, Article

1. Defendants on probation: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Defendant A of probation and community service order: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant C: The main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act;

1. The criminal defendant A with reasons for sentencing under the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.: The criminal defendant committed the crime of this case again even though he had a record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

However, the facts that the defendant led to the crime of this case, that the defendant did not commit the same kind of crime since 1999, and that the inhaled amount is not much.

Defendant .