A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment, and one million won of additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The fact that the determination of the crime is recognized and reflects on the crime, and that the person actively cooperates in the arrest of the narcotics offender is favorable to the defendant.

However, the fact that each of the crimes of this case was committed without being aware of during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, and the fact that a new narcotics offender was boomed for a crime that was delivered to others without being limited to the administration of phiphones, is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

Therefore, in full view of all the sentencing conditions of the defendant's age, sexual conduct, health, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and all the sentencing conditions in the records and theories of the case mentioned above, including the defendant's age, sexual conduct, health, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, the method and consequence of the crime, the circumstance after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy or it cannot be deemed unfair, and thus, the defendant and the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing are without merit.

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