2. The judgment of the court below seems to have determined the punishment in consideration of all of the above sentencing grounds, although the defendants led to the confession of crimes and reflect on the fact that the defendants delivered psychotropic drugs and acquired profits, and there are family members to support the defendants.

In light of these circumstances, the Defendants committed each of the instant crimes during the illegal stay, the number of psychotropic drugs delivered by the Defendants appears to have not been many, the Defendants administered psychotropic drugs, and the Defendants purchased them to sell psychotropic drugs in the case of Defendant A, which are the causes of demination of individuals, families, and society as a whole. As such, it is necessary to strictly punish them, taking into account the following factors: the Defendants’ age, career, character and behavior, character and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the circumstances after the crime were committed, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants’ punishment against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, according to the records, such as the investigation report dated November 8, 2018 (as to the seizure articles, the quantity and appraisal of narcotics, the record of the case No. 2018 Godan1924, the evidence records of the case No. 250, etc., it is evident that some of the psychotropic drugs confiscated by the Defendants have been used for the appraisal. In such cases, only the psychotropic drugs returned to the investigation agency after the appraisal are subject to confiscation, and therefore, the application of the law of the lower judgment as stated in Article 5