2. The fact that the defendants recognized the crime and reflected the fact that there is a family member to support the defendant A, the defendant B did not have any record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, and the fact that the age of 19 was minor at the time of the crime is favorable to the defendants.

On the other hand, the defendant A has three times criminal records due to the same crime.

The crime of this case is highly likely to be subject to criticism because the defendant was sentenced to punishment for the same kind of crime and completed the execution of punishment for the same crime.

The defendant seems to have no intention of voluntary treatment, and the defendant further sold a large quantity of philophones to another person in the previous crime that administered or purchased for medication, and provided a philophone to a minor person B, thereby enabling additional crimes.

There is no change in the sentencing conditions after the judgment of the court below was pronounced.

Defendant

B Although there is no less criminal punishment, in light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she was issued a conditional suspension of indictment for the same kind of crime on December 21, 2015, the Defendant does not seem to be against his/her own crime due to the truth.

In addition, considering the various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the record, such as the age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals by the Defendants are without merit.