2. The instant crime was committed in favor of the Defendant, even though the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, by arranging the sale and purchase of psychotropic drugs, by purchasing 0.2 g Mepta, and by injecting them into the arms, and smoking of marijuana in the form of smoking. As such, there are favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s recognition of and against the instant crime, and the Defendant’s cooperation in arresting the narcotics offender at the investigation stage.

However, despite the fact that the defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime four times in the past, he again committed the crime in this case. The defendant assisted the sale and purchase of the Meptian and disseminated the Meptian to another person. As a result of the application of the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Commission, the recommended punishment for the crime in this case is considered as an important investigation cooperation between August and September (the special sentencing factor). 1. A. B. The defendant's allegation that the recommended punishment for the good offices (the period between August and June) is difficult to be considered within the maximum sentence period of punishment, and it is difficult to be considered that the defendant's recommendation for the sale and purchase (the period between August and June) is within the maximum sentence period of punishment, and it is difficult to view that the defendant's recommendation for the punishment in this case is unreasonable, taking into account all the circumstances of the crime in this case, such as recommendation and punishment within the maximum sentence period of punishment of 1.2 months, 9 months, 1.6 months, and 1.6 months recommendation for medication (the period between June and June).

3. Conclusion.