A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Despite the fact that the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, the Defendant, at the Chinese short-dong, concealed approximately 1.4g, 1.44g, chlogram, chlogram 166, and Rologram 42 in a portable block, and directly possessed it, was boarded at B, which departing from the Chinese short port (local time) around October 17:25, 2019, and arrived at the 1 international passenger terminal in Incheon Jung-gu, Incheon, the coastwise 88 at the 1st international passenger terminal.

Accordingly, the Defendant imported psychotropic drugs from China to Korea.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on detection;

1. An analysis result report and an analysis result report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records;

1. Article 58 (1) 6, Article 4 (1) 1, and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. for Crimes;

Title (the point of importation of phiphones), Article 60(1)3, Article 4(1)1, and Article 2 subparag. 3(d) of the Narcotics Control Act.

Title (the point of possession of a clean-ro farm revenue), Article 60(1)3, Article 4(1)1, and Article 2 subparag. 3(d) of the Narcotics Control Act.

Title (the point of revenue from a farm),

1. On the other hand, the commercial concurrent inspections charged with the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) with each revenue of penphones, clograms, and log farms as substantive concurrent crimes.

However, the commercial concurrence refers to a case where one act constitutes several crimes (Article 40 of the Criminal Act). Here, the term "one act" refers to an act that is evaluated as one act in the state of the nature of an object, regardless of the legal evaluation (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do11687, Sept. 21, 2017). Each of the crimes of this case is reasonable to regard that each of the crimes of this case is imported together with a penphone, clogram, and rograms as one act under the social concept, and therefore, it is reasonable to see that each of the above crimes is in the commercial concurrence relationship.

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Code, philophones.