A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

On April 2020, the Defendant administered the psychotropic drugs, in an influorous manner, the Metrophical dose of psychotropic drugs, in the French or the Gyeongbuk-si (Seoul).

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the witness B of the testimony investigation report (related to the refusal to sign and seal all documents of the suspect), investigation report (in response to requests for appraisal of narcotics), investigation report (in the case of re-specified place for the same time and time), investigation report (in the case of calculating additional

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (Selection of Imprisonment with prison labor) concerning the relevant criminal facts and the selection of punishment;

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

1. Probation under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act that bear litigation costs

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant did not administer philophones as stated in the facts charged, and that the defendant's act of training philophones was due to the fact that the defendant had a long-term use of philophones or that the defendant was not his own urine.

2. Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the relevant legal principles and the principle of free evaluation of evidence, provides that the probative value of evidence shall be decided by the free evaluation of the judge is not because it conforms to the discovery of substantive truth. Thus, the judge of a fact-finding court who has the exclusive right to the examination of evidence shall consider the perception obtained in the trial in fact-finding and the examined evidence without any remainder.

In addition, the probative value of evidence is left to the free judgment of the judge, but the judgment should be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of conviction to be found guilty in the criminal trial is reasonable doubt.