A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

【Criminal Power, etc.】 The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. at Jeju District Court on December 27, 201, and completed the execution of the sentence in the Jinju Prison on March 21, 2013, and is not a person handling narcotics.

【Criminal Facts of Crimes】 On December 2013, 2013, the Defendant, on the part of the Defendant’s residence in the Jung-gu Seoul Central District Office C2, or on the Eblicker’s house located in Jung-gu Seoul Central District Office D, administered a psychotropic drug, a psychotropic drug, into his body in an irregular manner.

Accordingly, the Defendant administered philophones as such.

Summary of Evidence

【Criminal Experience】

1. A written inquiry about criminal records, etc., and a written inquiry about personal identification or confinement status, 【criminal fact】

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Requests for appraisal;

1. Ratifications (a suspect's written expert testimony) and prosecutions (a suspect's written expert testimony);

1. The following facts and circumstances are revealed according to the evidence of the judgment: (a) the Defendant reported on the administration of narcotics by telephone call on December 18, 2013; (b) the fact that there was a training reaction of narcotics (MET) as a result of a simple climatic test conducted by the police on the day of voluntary operation of the Defendant; (c) the Defendant’s request for appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation to the National Institute of Scientific Investigation by taking her hairs and urines to collect the Defendant’s hair and urines, and the investigation report (report on the market of phiphonephonephones). However, the Defendant alleged that there was no climatic dose; (d) the Defendant’s wife reported on the administration of narcotics by telephone call on December 12, 2013; and (e) the Defendant’s climatic response was found to have taken place in the climatic test and the verification test of cliines (a lack of quantity to the Defendant).