A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.

20,000 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

1. On September 2017, the Defendant injected approximately 0.14 grams in the Defendant’s residence in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, 202, in a one-time injection machine, and melted as water and injected into the Defendant’s arms.

2. On November 6, 2017, the Defendant inserted approximately 0.14g of philophones in a single-use injection machine at the above Defendant’s residence, melting them with water, and injected them into the Defendant’s arms.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A warrant of seizure, search and inspection;

1. Records of seizure, list of seizure and photographs of the site of seizure;

1. Each statement of narcotics appraisal [the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the collection of urine and hair was illegal due to intimidation and pressure by the investigative agency during the process of the defendant's urine and hair extraction, the recovery of urine and hair, and the result of their appraisal also constituted illegally collected evidence. However, seizure of the defendant's urine and hair, etc. is executed based on the lawfully issued seizure, search and verification warrant, and the defendant does not assert that the execution of a warrant was conducted in accordance with intimidation and pressure, or does not raise any objection to the court, and there is a new argument, it is difficult to accept the argument of illegally collected evidence by the defendant and his defense counsel (in addition, the defendant also claims that the defendant inform another narcotics offender in order to seek his urine punishment, and that the investigative agency is illegal. However, in the case of information about the narcotics offender, it is merely an " cooperation in the investigation" assessed as an element for mitigation in the sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court, and it is not deemed unlawful, as alleged by the defendant, and it is not unlawful.