A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

300,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On April 6, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Incheon District Court on April 6, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 17, 2017.

[2] On November 11, 2016, the Defendant received KRW 300,000 from AL to the Agricultural Cooperative Account (L) in the name of K managed by the Defendant, and then sent a single copy of the AL car, which is composed of approximately 0.4g g of the Mesophic mental medicine, to AL within the AL car stopped in front of the station located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu.

Accordingly, although the defendant is not a narcotics handler, he purchased and sold phiphones.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of a witness AL;

1. Some statements concerning the accused in the protocol of interrogation of the suspect to the prosecution (in the case of the second-time suspect examination protocol, including part of the AL in the case of the second prosecutor examination protocol);

1. Statement made by the prosecution on the AL;

1. A criminal investigation report (Attachment to a detailed statement of currency between a suspect and AL), a criminal investigation report (verification of places of crime), and a criminal investigation report (additional collection charge);

1. Inquiry of transaction details and family relation certificate;

1. Before the judgment: AL on December 22, 2016, based on the criminal history, each judgment, and final and conclusive materials of the judgment, made a concrete statement on the fact that the Defendant purchased phiphones from the Defendant as stated in the facts charged in the prosecution investigation process (Evidence List 2 and AL protocol) and on the process of the investigation conducted on May 8, 2017. AL reversed part of the previous statement to the effect that although the Defendant was provided with phiphones from the Defendant during the prosecution investigation process on May 8, 2017, the money remitted to the Defendant was not the purchase price of phiphones, but the money transferred to the Defendant was paid in rophones (Article 8 of the evidence list, the part of AL in the suspect interrogation protocol (two times) for the Defendant)], and “A (Defendant) of the instant case’s day.”

However, I did not provide money for that consideration.

“Non-Appearance” stating the content.