A. The punishment of the lower court (one month of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime, which had the record of criminal punishment several times for narcotics crimes, and thereby committed the instant crime, and the fact that phiphones have been administered again while the trial on the instant crime was in progress.

However, there are more favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant appears to recognize all the crimes of this case and reflect against the Defendant, the fact that the Defendant is able to take part in the treatment for drug addiction in the National Rice Hospital, and the family members also want to take part in the Defendant’s wife while promising the guidance of the Defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, career, occupation, circumstances after the crime, etc., and all the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, the lower court’s punishment (a sentence below the lower court’s sentencing criteria set forth in the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee) is deemed appropriate.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.