The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

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

The additional collection charge shall be equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

Punishment of the crime

On September 17, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (narcotics) at the Incheon District Court on September 17, 201, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 23, 2015.

Between March 14, 2014 and March 24, 2014, the Defendant administered a marcule (one philopon; hereinafter referred to as “philopon”), which is a local mental medicine, in a non-disculatory method at the Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court, such as the distribution Dong, Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu.

Accordingly, even if the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, he administered a philophone, which is a local mental medicine.

Summary of Evidence

1. An appraisal report or an investigation report (the review report of monetary details);

1. Investigation report (report, etc. on the market price of mert cancer patients);

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: Each written judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do429, Incheon District Court Decision 14No. 3277, Incheon District Court Decision 2014 High Court Decision 2987) / The defendant asserts that the same fact was charged because he/she had not been administered with philophones as above and had already been punished due to the fact that philophones were administered within the adjacent period.

In light of the above evidence, it is recognized that the Defendant’s philophone training reaction occurred from the Defendant’s urine taken around March 24, 2014, and since the philophone emission period in the urine is about 10 days normally, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant administered philophones as stated in its reasoning.

In the case of previous convictions for which the Defendant had already been punished, the application of the law to the extent that the time of recovery of the surphones appears to be around April 15, 2014, considering the period of discharge of surphones in the surphones, the instant case and the period of administration do not overlap, and thus, cannot be deemed the same

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 and Article 2 of the Act on the Selection and Management of Narcotics, Etc., concerning facts constituting an offense, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. The latter part of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act exempted from punishment (the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. as indicated in the judgment below).