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

3.280,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The above additional collection shall be reasonable.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On October 6, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (compact) at the Suwon method Board on the ground of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence at a public prison on May 12, 2012.

[Criminal facts] The Defendant is not a narcotics handler

On April 27, 2014, the Defendant used 1.5 million won as the price for the Metetop clop (one philopon; hereinafter “philopon”) which is a local mental medicine from D around April 27, 2014.

E received the transfer to the post office account (Account Number F) in the name of E, and around 19:00 on the same day, around 10:00, sold approximately 4.1g of 1c injection equipment and 0.1g of philophones packed in paper in the closed telephone room near H located in G, one of which contains approximately one gram of philophones to D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Copy of each protocol concerning the examination of suspects of D by the prosecution;

1. Details of financial transactions of D;

1. Information on opening post office accounts in the name of E used by the person under consideration;

1. A report on investigation (calculated additional collection charges);

1. Previous convictions: Criminal history inquiry and investigation report (Attachment of the previous judgment attached to the previous judgment - the confirmation of the crime during the period of repeated crime) / [D] the specific and consistent statement from the defendant as to the circumstance during which the Defendant purchased penphones without any particular consideration from the police first time after the police investigation (the judgment of conviction was issued) / D had appraisal made in this court a false statement at the injury investigation agency due to money problems between the defendant and the victim, and in fact purchased from the person I;

Although the defendant stated that the appraisal was not specifically stated for any reason, and it was not well known about the identity of I, the above legal statement is not reliable, and the defendant used I's mobile phone around April 27, 2014, which is the day of the crime of this case (Evidence No. 440 pages), and D strongly denied the fact that he purchased the penphone from I from the prosecutor (Evidence No. 440 pages).