2. The lower court determined that: (a) considering the fact that: (a) the Defendant was the first offender with no criminal power; (b) the Defendant committed all the instant crimes; and (c) the Defendant purchased marijuana for the purpose of smoking; and (b) the Defendant appears to have never been distributed during the process of selling it again; (c) as the instant crimes were closely traded and administered, it is not easy to detect narcotics, etc.; (d) the likelihood of other crimes caused by decliation and the risk of recidivism due to addiction; and (e) the negative impact of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., on the whole society was determined by comprehensively taking account of the following factors:

In full view of the factors and guidelines for sentencing expressed in the sentencing review process of the lower court, the lower court’s determination of sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

Furthermore, there are no circumstances suggesting that the court below’s decision on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing alleged by the defendant in this court is unreasonable even if the court below had determined the defendant’s punishment and had taken full account of the materials presented during the sentencing hearing of this court.

Of each of the crimes of this case, the crime of hemp purchasing is limited to imprisonment with prison labor for a limited term of at least one year, and the punishment for six months whose execution was deferred by the court below is the lowest sentence of punishment under the law which has undergone discretionary mitigation.

Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.