A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

The amount equivalent to the above additional charges.

Punishment of the crime

At around 01:00 on May 11, 2016, the Defendant administered philophones by means of taking one known fact containing psychotropic drugs (one philophones; hereinafter “philophones”) in a psychotropic drug clinic in order to ensure Chinese Maternity, despite the fact that the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Investigative reports (the previous records and attachment of judgments of a suspect), investigative reports (Attachment to the current status of entry and departure of each individual), investigation reports (the report on the calculation of additional collection charges);

1. An immigration report on the current status of individuals, a notice of the result of legal chemical appraisal (training of uriphonephones), a notice of the results of legal chemical appraisal, and a written appraisal report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1), and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the elective Management of Narcotics, Etc. concerning Criminal Facts and the Selection of Punishment;

1. The proviso to Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defense counsel and the defendant under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant asserts that, on May 11, 2016, around 01:00, the Defendant took a part of a philosophopon containing philoopon ingredients, but it was merely taken a part of a philosophopon with the intention of having the philoopon people living in China, and did not know that the alphopon ingredients were included in the alphopon.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the Defendant, as stated in its reasoning, even though he was well aware of the existence of philophone ingredients around 01:00 on May 11, 2016, is deemed to have administered philophones by taking advantage of one philophones received from the “C”, a local pet in China, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

On May 14, 2016, the defendant, after entering China, entered Korea.