A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

3,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Punishment of the crime

On September 14, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor due to the crime of interference with business, etc. at the Goyang Branch of the Jung-gu District Court on September 14, 2012, and its punishment became final and conclusive on September 22, 2012, and on November 2, 2012, the same court was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Retaliatory Crimes, etc.) and

The defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

1. On March 2012, the Defendant: (a) laid down in the submarine park located in Jung-gu, Seoul; (b) laid down the hemp seed coats in the pipes made of a single amount of tobacco, which he possessed, and she injecteds the marijuana in a way of smoking tobacco as if he smoked, together with C, as well as C.

2. On April 2012, the Defendant inhaled marijuana with C in the same place as stated in paragraph 1, and in the same manner as stated above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of C;

1. A written request for appraisal, an inquiry, and a report on the market price;

1. Previous records: Application of criminal records, etc. and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 61 (1) 4 and Article 3 subparagraph 10 of the Act on the elective Management of Narcotics, Etc. for Criminal Facts, Article 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

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

1. The grounds for sentencing under the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which have the history of having been sentenced four times to a punishment for the same criminal act: Provided, That the fact that the defendant led to a confession and reflects the criminal act; equity in the case of concurrent judgment with the crime of interference with business, etc. which became final and conclusive; and other circumstances constituting sentencing conditions specified in the records of this case, such as the defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, home environment, motive and means of the criminal act, and circumstances

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.