A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

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

The additional collection charge shall be equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

Punishment of the crime

From August 10, 2016 to around the 19th day of the same month, the Defendant administered the Mepta (one philopon; hereinafter referred to as “philopon”) volume in an irregular manner at the Incheon daily source.

Accordingly, even if the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, he administered a philophone, which is a local mental medicine.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;

1. Written reply to a request for appraisal;

1. Currency details;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (calculated an additional collection charge);

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Selection and Management of Narcotics, Etc. concerning facts constituting an offense (the choice of imprisonment with prison labor);

1. The proviso to Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no fact that the defendant administered phiphones.

Where there is a reply to a request from the head of the National Institute for Scientific Investigation to make an appraisal of the Mesacopic ingredient was detected in the Defendant’s hair or urine of the violation of the Narcotics Control Act, barring special circumstances such as the change of hair or urine, which is a test material, or there was an error or error, in the appraisal that is the basis of the reply, it should be recognized that the Mescopic ingredient was detected in the hair or urine collected from the Defendant. Accordingly, under the rules of logic and experience, there was a fact that the Defendant administered Mescopic amscopic urine before collecting the hair or urine subject to appraisal.

Recognizing must be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do1680, Dec. 9, 1994; 2007Do10937, Feb. 14, 2008). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court are, namely, the defendant taken around August 19, 2016.