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

619,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The amount equivalent to the above additional charges.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

1. On November 3, 2013, the Defendant issued philophones, around November 23, 2013, at the conference room where the name in the Daejeon Neong-gu is unknown, the Defendant granted approximately 0.7 grams of psychotropic drugs, which are psychotropic drugs contained in the one-time injection machine, to C at the conference room where the name in the Daejeon Neong-gu is unknown.

2. On December 4, 2013, around 18:00 on December 4, 2013, the Defendant: (a) met E, which he/she became aware of with C, along with C, on the roads near E’s house located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D; (b) through C, included 0.7 grams in a disposable injection machine; and (c) 500,000 won from E through C.

Accordingly, even if the defendant is not a person handling narcotics, he issued a phiphone to C and sold a phiphone to E in collusion with C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on witness E's partial statement;

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and Article 2 subparagraph 3 (b) (Article 30 of the Criminal Act is added to the point of delivery of philopon and the fact of crime as indicated in the holding that Article 30 of the Criminal Act is added to the point of delivery of philopon) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc

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

1. The proviso to Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. [the amount of opphones delivered on November 3, 2013] x 170,000 won (the intermediate wholesale price of 1g opphones in the Daejeon area) x 500,000 won (the amount of sales of opphones on December 4, 2013);

1. The defendant's conviction of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the reason for sentencing of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that he/she did not issue a philophone to C and traded a philophone to E, and that he/she observed an act of giving and receiving a philophone between the defendant and C, and that he/she purchased a philophone from the defendant through C, as stated in the crime No. 2.