A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Seized evidence 1 or 2 shall be confiscated.

10,000 won from the defendant.

Punishment of the crime

On April 1, 2016, the Defendant sentenced 10 months to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and completed the execution of the sentence in the Southern Prison on March 14, 2018.

The defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

No person other than a person handling narcotics shall trade, assist in the trade of, give or receive, possess, use, control, prepare, administer, or provide, psychotropic drugs.

1. On August 7, 2019, from around 07:00 to around 08:00 of the same day, the Defendant administered opon medication by means of inserting approximately 0.07 g of Mesophical medicine, into a single-use injection machine, in the dwelling area of the Defendant in Yangju-si apartment C, and inserting approximately 0.07 g of Mesophical medicine, into a single-use injection machine, into one-time injection and dilution with one-way mecopic water.

2. On August 8, 2019, from around 05:35 to 06:20 the same day, the Defendant possessed a philophone by means of hiding it into the above heading toilet e, a disposable injection equipment containing phiphones, and a disposable injection equipment containing liquid dilution.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal testimony of witness F;

1. Statement of the police and prosecutorial examination of the accused;

1. Each protocol of seizure;

1. The content of each religion Stockholm conversation;

1. Written appraisal of narcotics;

1. A report on investigation (specific amount of collection), and a monthly trend of narcotics;

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports (a repeated crime confirmation during the period of repeated crimes), and one copy of the personal confinement records [the defendant and his defense counsel have made a statement recognizing all the facts charged, and also made an examination of evidence by clarifying the opinion that all the evidence consents thereto. As such, the police officer’s act constitutes a criminal intent and constitutes a naval investigation, and the prosecution of this case, which was instituted based on the investigation, is null and void, an investigative agency will examine the person who does not have the original criminal intent.