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

Seized 4-chloro-2201 2.27ggs (Evidence 1), 4-chloroM-2201 2.3gs (Evidence 2), 4-Floro-2201 4-Floro-2201 2.62gs (Evidence 3), 4-Floro-AM-2201 2.54gs (Evidence 4) shall be confiscated.

On April 1, 2013, the Defendant requested the Defendant’s house located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City C and 101 to send psychotropic drugs called ‘synthesis marijuana' to EWH-018 or its similar body called ‘synthesis marijuana', which are called ‘synthesis marijuana' to the E-gu D residing in New Zealand using Kakakakaox, and then contacted the Defendant’s parents residing in New Zealand to contact with the Defendant’s parents residing in New Zealand and remitted USD 120,00 to D.

D, at that time, transferred the above price, D, together with two copies 5F-PB-22 (temporary narcotics, etc. on September 23, 2013), sent 4-chlor-AM-2201 and 5.16gs (including volume) in total, 4-Flor-22(including temporary narcotics, etc. on April 14, 2013) equivalent to the similar body of JW-018, psychotropic substances, together with two copies 5F-PB-22(including temporary narcotics, etc. on April 23, 2013). At around 35:00, D, at the time, sent the above price to 'A', stating the recipient and the first floorF of the Seocho-gu building in Seoul, the international letter of commerce concealed with the above psychotropic drugs, provided in Incheon Port in Incheon, Seodong-gu, Incheon, Incheon, with the JL51 of Japan on April 14, 2013.

Accordingly, in collusion with the above D, the Defendant imported approximately 9.73ggs (including 0.73gs) of psychotropic drugs from New Zealand to the Republic of Korea.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. A report on investigation ( obtaining criminal information), a report on investigation (Attachment to a public notice on designation of temporary narcotics, etc.), a report on investigation (Attachment to seized objects) and a report on seizure;

1. Responses to whether narcotics fall under narcotics, reports on the results of analysis, and notification of the results of appraisal of narcotics;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 58(1)3, 3 subparag. 5, and 2 subparag. 3 (a) of the Narcotics Control Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following grounds for sentencing has been repeatedly taken into consideration for favorable circumstances)

1. Confiscation;

The main sentence of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment: Imprisonment for not less than two years and not more than 6 months but not more than 15 years;

2. The scope of recommended sentences according to sentencing standards;

[Determination of Types] Narcotics Crime Group, Export and Import Manufacture, etc. (Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Drugs, Doz. (b), etc.)

[Special Mitigation] Where there is a reason to take into account the participation in the crime or the motive for the crime

[Determination of the Recommendation Area] Reduction Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and not more than five years;

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and six months, and three years of suspended sentence; and

The crime of this case is acknowledged as the substance of narcotics, which causes synthetic marijuana to be interchangeed by the defendant, and is thus sealed upon the request from D, and it cannot be deemed that the crime of this case is light.

However, considering the fact that the defendant repents and reflects his mistake in depth, the fact that the defendant seems to have closely imported synthetic marijuana for personal purposes, not for distributing synthetic marijuana, and that the amount of synthetic marijuana imported by the defendant is relatively small, the primary offender, and other factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family environment, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment as shown in the text shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all factors of sentencing as indicated in the arguments of this case.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Park Il-young

Judges Kim Gin-han