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

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

From January 18, 2015 to January 27, 2015, the Defendant administered a psychotropic drug dose in an influorious manner between the Defendant and Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C in a place with a single psychotropic drug.

Accordingly, even though the defendant is not a narcotics handler, he administered philophones.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Part of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. A written request for investigation;

1. Request for appraisal of a minor sample;

1. Report on the result of the preliminary test of narcotics;

1. Each request for appraisal;

1. Investigation report (suspects and persons prior to and after narcotics, their trade names, number of calls, and previous records of narcotics);

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the cathophone on purpose as stated in the facts charged does not contain any cathophone on purpose.

However, in the drug reaction test by simple reagents on the defendant's side which has been implemented three times, all the training reaction has been made, and the philophone training reaction has also been made in the diversity test by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation.

If any philogram, which is put in a philosophical beverage or beverage, is potable by the defendant, there is no doubt that the defendant, who had the past record of taking the philophone, did not feel, and therefore, there is a specific circumstance that could be doubtful even if he had been 10 days immediately before the simple drug reaction examination on the urine.

However, the defendant is asserting that he had a philosophical phone in drinking, drinking, etc. in this court, but does not clearly state the point of time and doubtful situations.

The defendant alleged to the effect that the investigative agency would have taken place in China by taking advantage of the reduced drugs brought by his/her spouse in China, but the defendant is also the same.