A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The additional collection charge shall be equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On November 8, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (competence) in the Gyeyang District Court’s Ansan Branch on November 8, 2013, and completed the execution of the sentence in the Ansan Prison on June 12, 2014.

【Criminal Facts】

The defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

On December 2, 2014, the Defendant, at the end of the foregoing B’s residence, administered 0.06g of philophones by inserting them into a single-use injection instrument and dilution them with water, and inciling them.

Summary of Evidence

1. Second-time protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Investigative report (the results of seizure, defense of the prosecution and maternal appraisal - training);

1. Data on investigation report (report, etc. to attach data on the time specified for medication according to the result of an appraisal of the maternity of a phiphone), and estimation of the timing for medication;

1. A report on investigation (additional report), and a table of the monthly trend of narcotics and cancer prices;

1. Previous convictions: Criminal records, personal confinement status, and judgment (Evidence evidence against confessions is sufficient if it is sufficient to acknowledge that the confessions of the defendant are true, not processed, even if it is not sufficient to acknowledge the whole or essential part of the crime, and it can be indirect or circumstantial evidence, not direct evidence, or circumstantial evidence, and evidence of guilt is sufficient as evidence of guilt if the confessions and reinforcement evidence are mutually recorded, and criminal facts can be acknowledged as a whole (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do1897, Jan. 8, 2002; 2007Do5845, Sept. 20, 207). According to the evidence examined by the court, the criminal facts of this case were voluntarily led by the defendant at the prosecutor's office. According to the evidence examined by this court, the defendant specifically stated that he administered Phphones in his residence at the prosecutor's office, and according to the fact that the defendant's cell phone call was proved as to his residence.