A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

20,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Criminal facts

The Defendant treated the so-called penphones (the so-called penphones, hereinafter referred to as “philophones”) as follows, even though he is not a narcotics handler.

1. On February 23, 2017, the Defendant administered opon administered around 10:0 by inserting approximately 0.03g of opon into a single-use injection instrument, d and 203g of oponon into a single-use injection instrument, dilution with water, and continuously administering opon into one’s arms, and selling approximately 0.01g of opon into a small-use injection.

2. At the time and place set out in paragraph 1, the Defendant sent philophones to E in the subject of 0.01g of philophones.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each letter of appraisal of narcotics;

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc., for the sake of facts constituting an offense, and Articles 60 (1) 3, and 4 (1) 3 (b) of the same Act, applicable to the choice of

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under the proviso of Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is that the defendant has a deep depth and reflects his mistake, and there are some circumstances that may be somewhat taken into account the motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, etc., in favor of the defendant.

On the other hand, although the defendant has long been punished for the same kind of crime, narcotics crimes are likely to be severely punished as serious crimes that are socially malicious and high risk of recidivism, etc. are considered disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court's sentencing committee have been set in full view of various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances and results of the crime in this case, the defendant's age, sex, intelligence and environment, health status, and family relations.