Seized evidence subparagraph 1 shall be forfeited from the accused.

from the defendant 1.

[Criminal Power] On April 2, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. at the Daejeon District Court and two years of suspended execution, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 10, 2015.

【Criminal Facts】

Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

1. On May 13, 2016, the Defendant: (a) concealed approximately 2.4 grams of psychotropic drugs, in the vicinity of the event, into a tobacco package; (b) concealed approximately one million won of psychotropic drugs, into a tobacco package; and (c) brought about the concealed philopon to F.

Accordingly, the defendant sold philophones.

2. On June 5, 2016, the Defendant gave approximately 0.07 gram-phones contained in the disposable injection machine to F, in the vicinity of the restaurant building in which the trade name in the Gunsan-si, Sinsan-si is unknown.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted philophones.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by F in the first protocol of the trial of the Seoul Central District Court 2016 Height3919 case;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol concerning F;

1. A copy of the police interrogation protocol of G; and

1. Details of currency;

1. Seizure records;

1. Previous convictions: Criminal records, investigation reports (verification of the facts under the period of suspended execution of a suspect), copies of written judgments, and F have made statements related to the trade of the instant written judgment specifically and consistently until the transfer of this Court; F’s statements made by the prosecution are contents that make it difficult for F to make himself/herself to make statements without experience; F’s conviction was finalized upon conviction of the Defendant for committing the instant written judgment; F’s statement that the Defendant did not have any contact with F on the day of the instant crime; and the Defendant’s telephone records, etc. were presented, while the call records, etc. were presented, they were made only with F on the date of the instant crime, but only with other days; Defendant and F on the day of the instant written judgment; and there is no reason to keep the Defendant and F on the rest of an expressway, which is difficult to keep even if they were only days other than the instant written judgment.