A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

Defendant from around 15:00 on August 16, 2014

8. At around 05:27, 17. Around 05:27, referring to the psychotropic drugs-related Mespopic Mespopic Mespopic Mespopic Mespopic Mespopic Mespopic Mespopic me

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Some of the statements made by the prosecution against the accused in the examination protocol of suspect;

1. Some statements concerning the accused during the second police interrogation protocol;

1. Test results and a request for appraisal;

1. Data of reports to departments related to 112 cases;

1. On-site photographs and CCTV photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (the details of dispatch to the 112 Report and the relation to voluntary movement of a suspect E), a report on investigation (Attachment to a suspect A case)

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. under Relevant Acts concerning criminal facts;

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

1. The circumstances acknowledged by each evidence revealed prior to the judgment on the criminal intent under the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., that is, the Defendant was detained on the charge of administering phiphones on April 30, 2014, and was subject to the suspension of indictment on May 27, 2014. The Defendant was found to have administered phiphones at the time of committing the instant crime in light of the following: (a) the Defendant was detained on the charge of administering phiphones; (b) the period of three months has not elapsed since the Defendant was arrested by the police; (c) the Defendant escaped from the arrest of the police; (d) the Defendant did not have any physical change after the phiphones administered; and (e) the Defendant was denied that the phiphones had not been administered; and (e) the Defendant had not complied with the phiphones as the result of the urine test taken by the warrant; and (e) the Defendant changed statement that the phiphone was administered.

The reason for sentencing (the scope of recommendations) medication, simple possession, etc.