A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On September 8, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten months in the Seoul Central District Court for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (competence) and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on September 20, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 20, 2016, and the suspended sentence was revoked on January 2, 2017.

[2] The Defendant, who is not a person handling narcotics, was not a person handling narcotics, was prohibited from dealing with the clophophones (one philophones; hereinafter “philophones”), but was administered once in an irregular way from November 10, 2016 to around January 15, 2016, such as Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Guro-gu, Geumcheon-gu, and Gwanak-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. The report on the results of the drug reaction test;

1. A response to a request for appraisal, and a narcotics appraisal report;

1. A request for the appraisal of drug ingredients, reply to a request for appraisal, and a report on narcotic appraisal;

1. Investigation reports (the results of analyzing the location of the base station of communications details);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Investigation report (the details of previous convictions and revocation of suspension of execution), additional court rulings, search of cases in B, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the current status of personal confinement;

1. The judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel regarding criminal facts under Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, Article 2 subparagraph 3 (b) of the Act on the Selection of Narcotics, Etc., and Article 60 (1) 3 (b) of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc., and the Selection of Punishment, etc., and Article 2 of the Act on the Determination of the defendant and his defense counsel

I argue that it cannot be seen.

First of all, the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel ① has been examined, ① a simple test of the defendant's urine which took place on November 15, 2016, and the response to the training of phiphones has been made. At the request of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation on November 22, 2016, the National Institute of Scientific Investigation on November 22, 2016.