A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

1. Around 17:00 on May 201, the Defendant violated the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flavour) received, without compensation, a mert campile (a one-time penphone; hereinafter referred to as a “per-time clophone”), which is psychotropic drugs sealed on paper from the shipper C at a restaurant parking lot adjacent to which the trade name located in the reverse village of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is unknown, and received them.

And the defendant in the lower order of June 2013 for the same year.

7. At around 19:00, 19:0 Posman administered phiphonephones received within the joint base of Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, in a way of cryping them from the board to the coffee.

2. Around March 22, 2014, the Defendant violated the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (mariju) and smoked from the restaurant next to the restaurant, where the trade name in the large tide market in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is unknown, with a little amount of marijuana (a single-time medication) in the fluoral area, while drinking D and fluoring in the large tide market.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the police statement to E and F, and the request for appraisal;

1. Articles 60 (1) 2, 4 (1), 2 subparagraph 3 (b), 61 (1) 4, and 3 subparagraph 10 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. under Relevant Acts concerning criminal facts;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The proviso to Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act;

1. The confession and reflect of the crime with the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the fact that there is no criminal record related to narcotics, and other various sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case