2. Determination

A. Defendant A shows his attitude to recognize all the crimes of this case and to reflect the mistake.

This part of the crime was attempted due to the seizure by the National Narcotics Agency of Thailand, which was provided for the Defendant's import of narcotics.

The defendant has no record of criminal punishment in Korea prior to the instant case.

It seems that there is a family to support the defendant and the economic situation is not good.

However, the instant crime is deemed to have been illegally staying in the Republic of Korea despite the expiration of the period of stay on February 20, 2018, and is not good in light of the frequency of the instant crime, details of the crime, etc.

It is not easy to detect narcotics crimes due to their characteristics, and there is a great negative impact on the society as well as on the risk of recidivism, such as impairing national health or inducing other crimes. In particular, in the case of import crimes, it is necessary to strictly cope with narcotics in that it causes the proliferation of narcotics in Korea.

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive for committing a crime, motive for committing a crime, consequence, etc., as well as all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, including the circumstances after committing a crime, where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. In addition, the sentence imposed by the lower court by comprehensively taking account of various sentencing factors is too unreasonable because it falls under the lower limit of the applicable sentencing.

Therefore, the defendant-appellant.