A. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the Defendant, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of all of the sentencing conditions of the Prosecutor’s instant case, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the judgment defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and reflects against the defendant.

However, considering the fact that the administration of narcotics causes serious harm to the society and the state’s soundness due to their toxicity, and that the defendant has committed a repeated crime due to the same kind of crime during the repeated crime period, as well as the age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment of the defendant as determined by the court below does not seem to be unfair because it is too unreasonable or too heavy (the defendant asserts that the sentencing of the court below is unfair because the court below did not reduce self-denunciation). The defendant is established by voluntarily reporting the criminal facts to an investigation agency and voluntarily expressing his/her intent to seek prosecution. According to the records, it is difficult to view that the defendant voluntarily surrendered the crime of this case after the arrest of the defendant. However, the court below determined the punishment by taking into account all the defendant’s attitude toward the investigation and the defendant’s treatment after the arrest of the defendant. Then, the defendant and the prosecutor’s appeal are without merit. Thus, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.