beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, for four months, and for three months, for defendant C, respectively.
except that this judgment.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[Criminal Records] Defendant A was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Seoul Central District Court on February 13, 2020, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 12, 2020.
Defendant
C On August 13, 2020, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced 6 months to imprisonment for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (competence) and 2 years of suspended execution, which became final and conclusive on August 21, 2020, and added the facts that became final and conclusive to Defendant C to “criminal facts” to Defendant C does not impede Defendant C’s exercise of defense, thereby ex officio adding them.
The following is also added to Article 37 of the Criminal Code, provided that Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Code is also also added.
[2] A person who is not a handler of narcotics, etc. shall be prohibited from handling a local mental medicine, such as selling and buying a psychotropic drug.
Defendants are not narcotics handlers.
1. On July 25, 2019, around 21:40 on July 25, 2019, Defendant A purchased and sold psychotropic drugs by receiving KRW 400,000 from B, and receiving KRW 400,00 from B, and delivering a white paper containing KRW 0.78g of philophones (hereinafter “philophones”).
2. Defendant B and C: (a) before selling philophones to philophones, Defendant B and C asked Defendant B to seek philophones and asked Defendant B to do so; and (b) Defendant B knew upon Defendant C’s request.
A tried to purchase phiphones from A.
The Defendants conspired, at the time and place described in paragraph 1, and Defendant B paid KRW 400,00 to A as described in paragraph 1, and received a white paper containing 0.78g philophones, and Defendant C waiting outside the above telephones. Defendant C traded a local mental medicine by receiving a white paper 0.78g of the above philophones from Defendant B.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendants’ each.