A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Seized white dust (philopon) 4.2362g (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, at the Daegu District Court on February 17, 2012, sentenced one year and six months to imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence) and completed the execution of the sentence on October 27, 2013 after being sentenced to six months for the same crime in the same court on November 30, 2012, and was not a person handling narcotics.

1. On May 23, 2015, at around 17:00, the Defendant administered philophones by eating approximately 2.4g of psychotropic drugs, within the Defendant’s residence in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu (hereinafter “Seoul-gu”).

2. On June 19, 2015, the Defendant administered philophones by inserting approximately 0.03g of philophones into a single-use injection machine on a non-commercial sponon (hereinafter referred to as “non-sponon”) around 19:00, in a way of injecting them into his left hand.

3. At around 18:50 on June 23, 2015, the Defendant stored and kept 4.3576g Handphones in his/her right-hand main machine and carried Handphones.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police seizure record and the list of seizure;

1. Session report on a request for appraisal (2015-D-2052), test results, and reply report on a request for appraisal;

1. Investigation report (limited to attachment of photographs of seized articles), penphone photograph, investigation report (in the face of a suspect's phiphone purchase, witness and arrest process), investigation report (in the face of a suspect's phiphone, contact address and attachment of vehicle photograph operated at the time), vehicle inquiry, and telephone number verification;

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

1. Previous convictions: Criminal history records, personal identification status, copies of the judgment, and the defendant and defense counsel's assertion are asserted to the effect that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder due to mental division at the time of each of the crimes in this case, so the records show that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder. Thus, it is recognized that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder due to mental division, etc. in the past and has received the diagnosis of mental disorder due to other interested events including carpets.