A. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, 80 hours of community service order, 40 hours of an order to attend drug treatment, Defendant B: one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that Defendant B (unfair sentencing on Defendant B) sent not only the philopon medication but also the distribution thereof, and that the Defendant committed the crime of handling philopon repeatedly with other accomplices, the lower court’s sentencing against the above Defendant is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. As to the Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing, there are favorable circumstances for the Defendant, such as the fact that Defendant A voluntarily surrendered to an investigative agency and informed the Defendant of each of the instant crimes, and actively cooperated in the investigation, that the said Defendant did not have any record of the same crime, and that the said Defendant did not violate his own mistake and did not repeat the crime.

However, in light of the fact that the above defendant administered a penphone more than one year over several times, the frequency of the administered phone, and the frequency and period of the crime, etc. of the above defendant's penphone medication, the circumstances favorable to the above defendant seems to have been already considered in the sentencing of the court below. The crime of this case only entails addiction and it is inevitable for the court below to severely punish the crime of this case, and taking into account all the sentencing conditions indicated in the arguments of this case, including the above defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances after the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below to the defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B appears to have the attitude of recognizing and opposing his mistake in determining the allegation of unfair sentencing on Defendant B and the prosecutor’s Defendant B, and the fact that the said Defendant had no record of punishment in the Republic of Korea is favorable to the above Defendant.

On the other hand, the above.