A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

164,400 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The amount equivalent to the above additional charges.

Punishment of the crime

On October 8, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on January 8, 2015, and on September 27, 2016, 13 times the same criminal records, including the fact that the execution of the sentence was completed in the main prison, and on August 29, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime in the Suwon District Court’s Pyeongtaek District Court’s Housing Site on April 24, 2018, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 24, 2018.

On December 20, 2016, at around 21:50, the Defendant received approximately 0.12 gram of psychotropic drugs, a psychotropic drug, enclosed to C, in paper, at the streets near Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B, and received them without compensation.

Summary of Evidence

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning C;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Copy of each protocol of examination of suspect C;

1. Investigation report (Attachment of C judgments for reference);

1. A report on investigation (report on the calculation of a surcharge) and a list of cancer prices of narcotics;

1. Two copies of C mobile phone calls, written judgments, and narcotics appraisal;

1. Previous Records: The defendant's statement in his court, each investigation report (the confirmation of the period of repeated crime of suspect, the declaration of the first instance court, and the second audit room), the judgment, the confirmation of the judgment, criminal records and criminal records of the defendant did not meet C at the date and time of the instant case and at the place, and delivered C with C, and as a matter of course, C's statement is inconsistent with C's initial statement that the telephone was administered together with C, and the contents of C's initial statement that the telephone was administered with C are different from the date and place of the crime, and that the date and time of the crime should rather be around October 2016.

However, C’s statements in investigation agency and court are specific, clear and consistent, and C’s statements are supported by C’s statement that two persons have passed on December 20, 2016 due to the mobile phone calls between the Defendant and C, and the Defendant’s denial statement is contrary to objective evidence, and C’s statement on the date and place of crime.