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

1.20,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Punishment of the crime

On July 26, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to 10 months in Seoul Eastern District Court for violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and completed the execution of the sentence on April 9, 201.

1. From around 18:00 on the first half of October 201, the Defendant: (a) purchased 600,000 fluoron phone, one of which is psychotropic drugs, from C, on the road near the king area in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, at around 19:00, equivalent to 0.7g of psychotropic drugs; and (b) purchased the fluoron phone.

2. On November 24, 201, between around 13:00 and around 14:00, the Defendant: (a) received request from F to purchase and sell phiphones; (b) solicited B to sell phiphones; (c) contacted C and F to contact F; and (c) attempted to sell c and F to F with c and sell 300,000 won from c to 600,000 won; (c) was attempted due to the wind arrested by C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. and the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and Article 60 (1) 2 and Article 4 (1) and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and Article 60 (3) and (1) 2 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., and Article 4 (1) and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and Selection of Imprisonment;

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

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

1. The Defendant, applying the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., asserts that there was a fact that the Defendant had met C and F on the date and place of criminal facts recorded in relation to paragraph (1) of the same Article, but the witness F did not appear to arrange. However, in this court, the witness F knew C before doing so.