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

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

Punishment of the crime

On July 17, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Daegu District Court on July 17, 2014, and completed the execution of the sentence on September 22, 2015.

Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

From February 3, 2016 to February 12, 2016, the Defendant administered the megatocopic dose, which is a local mental medicine, in an irregular manner.

Summary of Evidence

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

1. Partial statement of each protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Each description at the time of urine inspection, protocol of seizure, test result (pharmaceutical 16-1), telephone conversations details, response to requests for appraisal, copy of the scientific information on narcotics, etc.; and

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: Each statement of inquiry about criminal history, etc., investigation report (the date of release, the text of the judgment, etc.) [the defendant did not mephones voluntarily administered, and the defendant allowed anyone to drink beverages, alcohol, etc. containing the Defendant’s philophones (the so-called so-called “balon mulberry” refers to so-called “balon mulberry”).

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the above evidence: ① As a result of the Defendant’s appraisal of narcotics, etc. on the part of the Defendant, it is difficult to easily understand that the Defendant was administered with a certain period of time, and ② as a result of the Defendant’s investigation, the Defendant was punished for drug-related crimes on several occasions, and the Defendant’s investigation was conducted on the part of the Defendant’s hair (4 to 6 cm). As a result, the Defendant’s cam and the cam were also detected even in the Defendant’s hair. In light of the fact that the assessment of narcotics, etc. on the part of the Defendant’s cam is not detection of the cam and camcamcamcamcamcamcams, it is difficult to readily understand that the Defendant was administered with a considerable period of time.