10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

From August 5, 2017 to August 14, 2017, the Defendant administered the meconthic dose of meconthic ambapy (one name: a philophone; hereinafter referred to as “philophone”) using a disposable injection device, or dilution with drinking water between the Defendant and the Defendant from August 5, 2017 to August 14, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Copy of a reply to a request for appraisal, a written confirmation of precision appraisal, a request for close inspection of drug reaction, a result of an appraisal of hair, an appraisal of whether narcotics are taken using samples of each living body, an appraisal of whether they are taken, a country and a water response, a public notice requesting the observation office of Busan Protection, a copy of the protection observation card, and a situation of

1. Application of this statute to telephone details, B’s salpharization of messages

1. Relevant Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2, and Article 60 of the Act on the Selection and Management of Narcotics, Etc., concerning facts constituting an offense, the selection of a sentence to imprisonment;

1. Determination on the Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion under the proviso to Article 67 of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc.

1. The alleged defendant has not administered phiphones at the time and place on which the facts constituting the crime are recorded;

2. In a case where a reply is made by the Director of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation to request appraisal by the Director of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, which found the detection of Metephroids in the Defendant’s urine or hair, barring special circumstances, such as the change of urines or hairs, or the occurrence of mistakes or mistakes, in the appraisal which forms the basis of the reply, it should be acknowledged that the Metephs composition was detected from the urine or hair collected from the Defendant. Accordingly, in accordance with logical and empirical rules, there was a fact that the Defendant administered Metephs in the Metephe before collecting urines or hairs which are the subject of appraisal.

It should be recognized (Supreme Court Decision 94Do1680 delivered on December 9, 1994, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10937 delivered on February 14, 2008).