2. On November 13, 201, the Defendant was already sentenced to one year and three months of imprisonment for the same crime, and purchased and administered a merpter (hereinafter “copon”) during the period of repeated crime after the execution of a sentence was completed on November 13, 2011, and the crime related to narcotics is likely to cause severe social harm due to its toxicity and thus requires strict punishment against the Defendant.

However, the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and cooperates with the defendant by providing information on the location of the person who committed the crimes of this case during the investigation process of this case, and the defendant administered the phiphones due to depression caused by divorce with the former husband, etc. after the crime of this case, the defendant's intention to life has been diverse through volunteer activities, acquisition of qualification, etc., and again, it is decided not to prevent the crime related to the phiphones. The defendant supports the son who is an elementary school student after divorce, and other circumstances, including the defendant's age, character, character, occupation and environment, the circumstances and results of each of the crimes of this case, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of conclusion is dismissed on the ground that the appeal by the prosecutor is without merit. It is so decided as per

[However, in the judgment of the court below, it is clear that "Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1), and Article 2 subparagraph 3 (b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (Selection of Fines)" is an error in the "Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and Article 2 subparagraph 3 (b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.," and it is corrected that it is ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.