A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The number 1 (No. 1) and 2 (No. 2) of the seized list shall be from the defendant.

Punishment of the crime

On December 7, 2004, the Defendant was sentenced to one year in violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. at Busan District Court on December 7, 2004 and completed the execution of the sentence in Daejeon Prison on August 25, 2005, and the previous department was added once more.

1. Notwithstanding that the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, the Defendant, around 06:00 on August 26, 2012, inserted approximately 0.07g of psychotropic drugs in a single-use injection machine, and administered them for one-time injection by melting them in his/her arms, as prescribed in Article 209 of the “Dmophone” located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul.

2. At around 13:00 on August 26, 2012, the Defendant carried approximately 0.38g of philophones, which were contained in the “Darel” located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul, in a manner that puts approximately 0.38g of philophones under his/her will.

3. On August 27, 2012, at around 13:45, the Defendant granted approximately 0.81g of philopon to G from 609 “Fel” located in the window E of Changwon-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Written appraisal of narcotics;

1. The Defendant asserts that the person who delivered a penphone to G at the above time and at the above time, was not the Defendant, but H, regarding the facts constituting the crime (the fact that a cellphone was given free of charge toG) recorded in the facts constituting the crime.

The evidence consistent with the facts of the crime of G is a legal statement of G and a statement in the investigation agency of G.

Although G reversed the statement of a person who delivered a phiphone at the police station (in the case of the first investigation by the police police, the defendant was the defendant but the second investigation by the police on the same day reversed the statement that he was not the defendant but the defendant at the time of the third investigation by the police, but again reversed the statement that he was given at the time of the third investigation by the police), G is the defendant. However, after that, the person who delivered a phiphone to him until the prosecutor's office and this court is the defendant.