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

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

The amount equivalent to the above additional charges.

Punishment of the crime

On December 17, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act in the Manpo District Court of Gwangju on April 19, 2016, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on April 19, 2016. On September 14, 2017, the Seoul Central District Court was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (fence) and became final and conclusive on August 21, 2018.

Criminal facts

Despite the fact that the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, from November 4, 2017 to the 14th day of the same month, the Defendant administered the Mepta Meba Non-comfore (Amb.03-05g ordinarily once 0.03 to 0.05gg), which is a local mental medicine, in the vicinity of the Defendant’s residence located in Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Namdong-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court (the fifth public trial date);

1. Investigation report (referring to search and seizure of materials related to the time of climatic appraisal, suspect's climatics, hairs, hairs, etc., reporting on calculation of additional collection charges, attaching a copy of records of a suspect's case to a separate collection charge, attaching a copy of records of a transparent vinyl which a suspect uses to contain chophones, reporting on

1. Protocols of seizure (in the face of 53 pages), protocol of seizure and list;

1. A maternity appraisal report (67 pages of investigation records);

1. A statement on narcotics appraisal;

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: inquiries about criminal history, the entrance and exit of each individual, the order of 1310, 1497, the order of 15, the order of 1497, the order of Gwangju District Court 2016No81, the order of 2016, the Seoul Central District Court 2016, the order of 6824 [the defendant refused to submit the defendant regarding the urine and hair collected under the consent of the defendant, and the defendant's hair was recovered again according to a search and seizure warrant issued thereafter.

The process of the extraction by the above search and seizure warrant was in accordance with the legitimate procedure, and the philophone component was detected as a result of the appraisal of the extraction.

On the basis of the search and seizure warrant issued on the basis of information, the search and seizure of the goods kept in custody was conducted, and among them, the appraisal of transparent vinyl packaging was conducted.