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

Since the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, the Defendant is prohibited from dealing with psychotropic drugs, such as Mesophalopon (hereinafter referred to as 'coponopon', hereinafter referred to as 'copon").

1. At around 19:00 on July 26, 2019, the Defendant purchased 300,000,000 won in cash, a one-time injection device containing approximately 0.03g of philopon E, which was known in the D nearby C Station located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu.

2. Medication of phiphones.

A. On July 26, 2019, at around 23:00, the Defendant: (a) injected water into a philophone 0.03g g, which is contained in a disposable injection unit purchased in paragraph (1) within the F Hotel G of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu; and (b) injected water to the left-hand hand of the Defendant.

B. On July 28, 2019, at around 19:50, the Defendant: (a) injected water into a philophone 0.03g, which is contained in a disposable injection machine purchased from paragraph (1) within Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu H hotel I; and (b) injected water to the left-hand hand of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol against J;

1. Written appraisal of narcotics;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the calculation of additional collection charges;

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1), and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc., concerning facts constituting an offense, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

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. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, and Article 44-2 of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act;

1. The proviso to Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order not only prevents an individual’s body and mind, but also requires strict punishment due to high risk of harm to national health and social safety, and according to the investigation prior to the judgment that the probation office responded to the judgment prior to the ruling, the defendant is going against his mistake and has a brupted, but also re-offending.