Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months and by imprisonment for six months.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A In March 18, 2016, the Suwon District Court sentenced two years to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence), etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 28, 2016.

1. Notwithstanding that the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, at around 00:30 on April 12, 2016, at around the Defendant’s residential corridor located in Pyeongtaek-si E 205, Defendant A (hereinafter “D”) provided that the Defendant would receive KRW 300,000,000 from B, and sold it in front of the Defendant’s residential corridor, which contains psychotropic drugs-related Mepta (hereinafter “E”), 50,000 won.

2. Although Defendant B (one person referred to as “F”) is not a person handling narcotics, the Defendant purchased the goods at the same time and place as that set forth in paragraph (1) at a time and place as above, with a view to KRW 300,000,000,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment of written judgments);

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, etc., concerning the relevant criminal facts and the Selection of Punishment;

1. Handling concurrent crimes (Defendant A) (latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Defendant B) of the suspended execution;

1. The reasons for sentencing under the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. are as follows.

Defendant

B is recognized as normal that the record of criminal punishment is not confirmed except for a fine (one time).

On the other hand, the Defendants sold and purchased psychotropic drugs that have a significant impact on the public health.

Considering the risk of addiction to narcotics, it is not severe punishment.

The above circumstances and Defendant A should consider equity in the case of concurrent judgment with the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., for which the judgment became final and conclusive, and the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and motive and motive of the crime.