마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the defendant A; the defendant A; the defendant for August, confiscation and collection; the defendant B; the defendant for one year; and the collection) is too unreasonable.
2. The fact that the Defendants’ mistakes and reflects the Defendants, and the fact that the Defendants expressed their intent to stop is favorable to the Defendants.
However, considering the various circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable, taking into account the following factors: (a) Defendant A was sentenced twice to the previous sentence; (b) Defendant B had the criminal records of the two-time suspended sentence on the same line; (c) the amount or frequency of the penphone handled by the Defendants; (d) Defendant A was not limited to the simple medication; and (e) Defendant A did not go through sales without being limited to the simple medication; and (e) the need to punish the society and the State as a serious crime detrimental to the soundness of the society and the State due to its toxicity.
3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal 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.