A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

720,000 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

Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

On November 15, 2017, around 01:30, the Defendant received approximately 1.6 g of Mesofts (copon; hereinafter “popon”), a local mental medicine, from D, from approximately 506 popons in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

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

1. Statement made by the prosecution with regard to D;

1. Investigation report (Attachment to the suspect interrogation protocol) and investigation report (additional collection charge) [The defendant and his defense counsel shall pay D money borrowed from the existing defendant, although there is any fact that D had been delivered at the time and place stated in the crime in the judgment,

The defendant extended 200,000 won to the end of a dispute with D without complying with the promise to repay money on the job, and the defendant borrowed more than 200,000 won at the above conference. At the time, the defendant was memoryd on the above telephone, but the defendant did not know whether he was packing the telephone, and the defendant argued to the effect that he did not receive the telephone from D, and that the confession during the investigation process is a false statement based on the investigator's meeting or intimidation. Thus, the first police police police at the time when he was investigated, and the investigator was identified as the defendant as the person who delivered the phone to the phone, and the investigator became aware of the fact that he was not the defendant, but the investigator was not the defendant, and that he was delivered money to the defendant on the day when he made a statement to the defendant, and that he was consistently aware of the fact that the defendant's specific circumstance was changed.