A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

The defendant of "2017 Highest 999" is not a person handling narcotics.

E on May 2016, G hotel rooms located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, providing the Defendant with a mert clopic volume, which is a local mental medicine medicine (hereinafter referred to as “philopon”), which is flopic mental medicine, to each recipient, and instructed the Defendant to “Irop upon receiving the price for flopon.” The Defendant issued the said flopon to the purchaser of the said flopon on the alleyway near the Iropic road located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and received the delivery of KRW 400,000.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with E to sell philophones.

Summary of Evidence

1. A statement by the defendant, at the time and at the place of judgment, to the effect that there is a fact that goods stored in a paper are delivered from E and delivered to him;

1. An accomplice E judgment (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 7594, etc.);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the Seoul Central District Court 2016 High Court Order 7594, High Court Order 2017 High Court Order 186 (Consolidation), High Court Order 2017 High Court Order 1962 (Consolidation)

1. Articles 60(1)2 and 4(1)1 and 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. concerning criminal facts

1. Imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

1. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the observation of protection;

1. The proviso to Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. for Additional Collection

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the Defendant did not know that the goods were philopons, although the Defendant received from E the goods scopons at the time and place of the ruling, and sent them to the person under whose name the goods were scopons.

The argument is asserted.

In light of the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant’s witnessing the administration of phiphonephones together with J, and the Defendant’s receipt of a paper packaging from E at the date and time and place of the decision of the Defendant, and return to E, and return to E, KRW 400,000 in cash.