A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. A violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fluence) provided that the Defendant, who is not a narcotics handler, dealt with the Mepta (fluoropon; hereinafter referred to as “diphone”) which is a local mental medicine as follows.

A. On July 2016, the Defendant: (a) inserted approximately 0.03g of popon medication once into a single-use popon injection machine; (b) injected it in a luculous injection machine; and (c) injected it by dilution after dilution.

B. On June 2017, the Defendant: (a) inserted approximately 0.03g of philophones into a single-use injection machine; and (b) injected them in a dilution machine for the first time; and (c) injected them by dilution after dilution.

(c)

Defendant for the same year

8. 25. 22:00 At the vicinity of the Fing Practice, known to him;

G purchased approximately KRW 300,000,000 from the philophone and approximately 0.45g of philophones.

(d)

On the 26th 10:00 of the same month, the Defendant administered approximately 0.03g of the clophones purchased as above, one time in a way of delivering them to coffee.

E. On the same day, the Defendant possessed approximately 0.42 gramopon at the entrance of the He apartment of Busan Y at around 17:10 on the same day, in a way that he stores approximately 0.42 gramopon on a white paper in a white paper, and stores it on the wall of the Defendant.

In the end, the Defendant traded, administered, and led to the administration of philophones as above.

2. On August 20, 2017, the Defendant, in response to the Defendant’s refusal to leave, did not comply with the Defendant’s demand of the victim I of H apartment 8 Dong 316 around August 20, 2017 to leave the entrance of the said residential area to keep the entrance and keep the entrance of the said residential area, on the ground that the victim, who had been at risk of maintaining resistant relations, did not take any place, and that he did not comply with the demand of the victim, who was forced to leave from the damaged.

Ultimately, the Defendant rejected the victim’s request for eviction as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's person;