20,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

1. On July 2015, the Defendant received approximately 0.05 g of Mesofts (tentatively called 'copon'; hereinafter referred to as ‘copon’) from E in the next 'D cafeteria' parked in Busan Franchiscon C’, which was parked in the parking lot, from E for a single-use copon.

2. On July 2015, the Defendant administered 0.05 g of philopon, which was received from a toilet No. 102, 2, 102, Busan, Busan, on a single-time basis, once in the way of injecting 0.05 g of clopon into his arms, in a single-time injection machine.

3. On September 16, 2015, the Defendant received approximately 0.05g of philopon, which is contained in E in a disposable injection machine, within a passenger car parked in the F apartment in the vicinity of the F apartment in Busan-gu, Busan-gu, 2015.

4. On September 16, 2015, the Defendant administered 0.05 g of philophones received from the toilet No. 102, 2, 102, Busan, Busan, on a single-time basis, once in the way of injecting 0.05 g of clophones into his arms after being injected into his arms.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Copy of the interrogation protocol of prosecution E;

1. Investigation report (the result of simplified test of narcotics, etc.);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a narcotics appraisal report;

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 (Article 2) of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc. and Selection of Imprisonment with prison labor for the crime (the point of receipt and administration of opphonephones at the time of market), and selection of punishment for each crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant's crime of receiving and administering the instant penphones for the reason of sentencing in the proviso to Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is not less vulnerable to the nature of the crime in light of the repetition of the crime and the relation with the person who caused the penphones.

However, the fact that the defendant is seeking to avoid the same mistake by making the entire confession of the crime and submitting a statement of reflection on several occasions.