A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

50,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On April 15, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. at the Incheon District Court on April 15, 2009 and completed the execution of the sentence at the Gwangju Prison on March 7, 2010.

【Criminal Facts】

Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

On April 9, 2010, the Defendant asked C, who was aware of the reputation in Busan, to seek the Mepta (one philopon; hereinafter referred to as the “Melopon”) from the Fluxa (one philopon) and remitted KRW 500,000 to the head of the Tong in the name of D.

The Defendant, as above, remitted the philophones to C, purchased approximately 0.7g of philophones sent by C to E freight at E terminal at that time, and purchased them.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the third protocol of trial;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Details of account transactions;

1. Previous records: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, investigation reports (verification of the date of release from the court), investigation reports (Attachment to a copy of the judgment);

1. Article 60(1)3 and Articles 4(1) and 2 subparag. 4(b) of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc., for which the relevant provision of criminal facts and the former Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc., for which punishment is selected (Amended by Act No. 10786, Jun. 7, 201); the choice of imprisonment

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion under the proviso of Article 67 of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (amended by Act No. 10786, Jun. 7, 201) is true that the defendant remitted 500,000 won to C. However, it is alleged that the defendant lent 500,000 won to C by the request of C, not by the philop purchase price, but by the request of C, and that the defendant did not have any intention to purchase philopon from C, and that the defendant did not actually have any intention to purchase philopon. However, the witness's testimony is consistent from the investigative agency to the present court, and there is credibility because the contents of the witness's statement