Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

A. The punishment of each of the judgment below by Defendant A (the punishment of the judgment of the court below: imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months, additional collection of 100,000 won, and 200,000 won: imprisonment of 1 year and 200,000 won) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment of Defendant I’s decision on KRW 2 of the Judgment Committee (the imprisonment of one year and two months, and the additional collection of KRW 350,000) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The punishment of each judgment of the court below against Defendant A is too unhued and unfair.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant A and the Prosecutor, this Court decided ex officio prior to the judgment of the lower court on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant A and the Prosecutor, and this Court decided to concurrently examine each appeal case against the lower judgment. Since the crimes that the lower court found Defendant A guilty are concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the crimes that the lower court found Defendant A guilty are not subject to separate punishment as stated in the first and second judgment, and should not be punished in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the punishment of concurrent crimes, and thus, the part against Defendant A among the lower judgment and the second judgment cannot be maintained in this respect.

3. We examine the judgment regarding Defendant I’s unfair argument of sentencing, although the Defendant acknowledged and reflected the instant crime, the Defendant committed the instant crime, including the criminal record, and committed several times of convictions, and committed the instant crime again during the period of repeated crimes for the same kind of crime. The instant narcotics crime is highly dangerous to the public’s health and social security; the risk of repeating the instant crime is large; and all other matters concerning the sentencing as indicated in the record and the theory of change, including the background of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, occupation, sex, environment, circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered appropriate, and thus, the instant Defendant’s argument is without merit.

4. If so, the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance on the part against Defendant A as above.