마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
Even if the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, on May 2015, the Defendant, along with C, D, and E, injected a psychotropic drug in a single-use c, in the Seocho-gu B hotel hotel room in the Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, 2015, in a single-use c, in a single-use c, and then injected a phiphone by inserting it into a single-use c, and then dilution with water.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. C’s legal statement;
1. Witnesses D and E respective legal statements;
1. Copy of the interrogation protocol of prosecution E;
1. Statement by the prosecution concerning D;
1. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant did not have administered a phiphone. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion on the investigation report (in the form of a judgment and a copy of a indictment), investigation report (in the form of a B hotel manager’s statement), investigation report (in the form of a written indictment), the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion are rejected.
① The Defendant, at an investigative agency, denied most of the facts confirmed by himself/herself from other evidence, such as the fact that he/she met C via E, and the Defendant stated that four persons entered B hotel guest rooms and sought to have a collective sexual intercourse, and that D was administered together with phiphones, and that D was out of the hotel with E.
However, this is not consistent with any statement or circumstantial evidence of any person, and it is not reliable because it is not specific.
(2) Although there is no evidence that narcotic ingredients have been detected in the Defendant’s hair taken by an investigative agency, considering the fact that three years have elapsed since the date of taking the hair on November 29, 2018, and that the Defendant’s hair is partially dyphosomeed, a voice reaction has been made by the mere fact that there was a voice reaction.