A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Punishment of the crime

On November 3, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 20:50, at the D’s house located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Cloan 205, sold approximately KRW 11.5 million from E; and (b) at the Mecamptop, a psychotropic drug, issued approximately 48.7g of Mecopon (hereinafter “Mecopon”).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, and F;

1. Some statements made in the suspect examination protocol of each prosecution about D (3) and E;

1. Suspect D, A arrest report, seized objects, etc. photographs, seizure records, investigation reports (the telephone conversations between D, A, and E among the entire telephone records);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to notification of the result of appraisal of narcotics;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel regarding the relevant Article of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 11 (2) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 60 (1) 2, 4 (1) 1, and 2 subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Narcotics Control Act concerning

1. Summary of the assertion

가. 피고인은 D을 통하여 E에게 필로폰 매도의사를 표시한 사실은 있으나, 단지 E으로부터 필로폰 매매대금만 가로챌 목적으로 이 사건 범행현장에 간 것이지 실제로 필로폰을 소지하고 가 E에게 매도하지는 않았다.

Handphones discovered at the scene of the instant crime are not owned by the Defendant, but brought to E.

B. Even if the Defendant sold philophones to E, the instant crime is committed by a naval investigation, which was caused by the investigative agency’s request, to sell philophones through E, and thus, the instant indictment is null and void.

2. Determination

A. The evidence D, E’s investigation agency, and this court’s statements are somewhat inconsistent or inconsistent with the detailed part of the evidence, which was 1 prior to whether the Defendant sold phiphones to E, but this is about the current criminal facts of D and E.