A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is not a person handling narcotics, but shall not sell, receive, administer, or possess a psychotropic drug.

Nevertheless, at around 23:00 on January 7, 2015, the Defendant: (a) stopped in the southnam-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul; (b) purchased approximately 0.35 g of mematic drugs, which are flapic drugs contained in vinyl B, from the Defendant’s Nos. 200,000 won, to B; and (c) purchased, from B, the Defendant sold, received, administered, or possessed mephones at least nine times in total, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, from April 6, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. A copy of a protocol concerning the examination of suspect B or C;

1. Copy of the police statement concerning B;

1. A warrant for search, seizure and verification;

1. Police seizure protocol and reply letter of request for each appraisal;

1. The description of telephone calls and photographs of telephone records;

1. Investigation reports (Attachment to D judgments) and written judgments;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing a report on investigation (additional imposition), and table of price of narcotics;

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. under the relevant Acts on criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Probation under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The main sentence of Article 67 of the Act on the Management of Confiscated Narcotics;

1. The reason for sentencing under the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., was that the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime in 193, but again committed each of the crimes in this case.

However, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of the fact that the defendant has mistakenly recognized the defendant, the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime since 1993, and other sentencing conditions shown in the records, such as the age, character and conduct, and environment of the defendant.