A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

42,00 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act in the Daegu District Court’s support on July 3, 2015 and completed the execution of the sentence in the Yangyang Detention House on September 14, 2016.

[Criminal facts] The Defendant is not a narcotics handler

On February 1, 2017, the Defendant provided the “E” store located in Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, with a single-use injection device containing approximately 0.03g of philopon to F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

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

1. Investigation report (specific facts and place of crimes using suspect F currency details);

1. A list of accomplices;

1. Investigation report (to listen to the recording file of an interview with an informant F), investigation report (a record of interview with an informant F by a suspect A), and records of each currency;

1. Investigative report (calculated additionally charge), price of narcotics traded;

1. Court rulings and public trial records;

1. Previous convictions: (A) a written reply to inquiry; (2) a criminal investigation report (the filing of a judgment before and after crimes committed against a suspect); (3) a statement made by F, by F, that: (a) the court may comprehensively identify the evidence legitimately adopted and investigated; (b) a part of the F’s statement was changed; (c) a statement made by F, who was delivered a phiphone from the Defendant, was delivered to the Defendant on the date and time of the above crime; (d) the Defendant refused to provide the first statement; and (e) a statement made by F, who received a phiphone from the Defendant while he returned to the original state, was consistent with the telephone details and time at the time of the call between the Defendant and F; and (ii) the Defendant did not have made a call after the first F left the Defendant’s personal seal (as of Article 97 of the Investigation Records), but thereafter, that F, who attempted to take a phone again, was going to go to leave the Republic of Korea (as of Korea was trying to go to go to her.

The statement also was made (influence No. 104 of the investigation record), F.