A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On March 30, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Incheon District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence on April 3, 2017.

[Criminal facts]

1. On June 6, 2017, the Defendant: (a) introduced the F to E in order for E to purchase approximately KRW 7 million from the D located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon at around 19:00 to KRW 6 million; and (b) to purchase approximately 17.39 grams from F.

Accordingly, even though the defendant is not a narcotics handler, the defendant assisted the trade of philophones.

2. From May 29, 2017:

6.7. The Defendant’s administration of phiphonephones from May 29, 2017 to the same year.

6.7. Around July 1, 2007, in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, such as Gelves listed in paragraph 1(f) of the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, administered an influoral phone by an in

Accordingly, even though the defendant is not a narcotics handler, he administered philophones.

Summary of Evidence

[Judgment No. 1]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E by the prosecution;

1. Each protocol of seizure;

1. A detailed statement of currency;

1. Each investigation report (the confirmation of the call details of the suspect A and F and the defendant F, and the fact of cooperation in the investigation of narcotics investigation department in Seoul Office) asserts that the defendant did not have any criminal intent to arrange the purchase and sale of phiphones. However, each of the evidence in the judgment, the defendant introduced E for the purchase and sale of phiphones to F, and led E to the passage of E and F on the day of the instant case. The defendant's main election was the transaction of phiphones in this case at the location of F and F, and the fact that E was attempted to be informed at the time was unrelated to the sale and purchase of phiphones in this case. Thus, the defendant's promise to inform the chis for the public interest of E at the time is not to be made.

The defendant's assertion that the transaction of the instant philopon was not arranged on the same day is easy.