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

Punishment of the crime

Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

around 13:00 on October 14, 2014, the Defendant informed G’s contact address (H) to purchase mectophophones (one philophone, hereinafter “philophones”), which is a local mental medicine, from E and F meetings, at the D prison meeting room located in the Naman-gun, Nam-gun, Seoul. G sold 3.7 grophones to E twice.

Accordingly, the defendant assisted the trade of philophones.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statements by the defendant in part of the court (as at the seventh public trial date), and some statements by the defendant in the first public trial protocol;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Entry in G in the third public trial records, and entry in F part of the fifth public trial records;

1. Preparation and report of recording records, application of respective Acts and subordinate statutes to E, F, and G;

1. Determination as to the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the relevant Article of the Act and Articles 60 (1) 2, 4 (1) 1, and 2 subparagraph 3 (b) of the Act on the Selection of Narcotics, Etc. (the choice of imprisonment) concerning criminal facts

1. The alleged defendant merely informed E of the contact number of G, and thus, the defendant assisted the trade of phiphones.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. In the crime of arranging the purchase and sale of philophones under Article 60(1)2 of the Narcotics Control Act, the term “allophones” refers to the transaction between the parties who intend to sell and sell philophones and mediating or facilitating convenience in dealing with philophones. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant can be sufficiently recognized to have arranged the purchase and sale of philophones by notifying E of contact contact details and promoting convenience in trading philophones between E and G. Thus, the Defendant and his defense counsel’s above assertion should not be accepted.

A. The Defendant received a request from F, the spouse of the E de facto marital spouse, who had been interviewed several times prior to the instant case, to inform him of the person entitled to seek a penphone, and at the time to F.