2. Determination

A. Common sentencing grounds are advantageous to the fact that the Defendants recognize the instant crime itself and reflects the mistake.

However, narcotics crimes cause the degradation of individuals, families, society, and human beings as a whole, and need to be punished in light of the fact that they are social pathology beyond individual criminal acts.

Furthermore, even if the Defendants had had previously been punished as a drug crime, they re-offending again.

In light of the above circumstances and the following, individual sentencing factors against the Defendants: the age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, health status, motive and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the argument of this case are considered.

B. Defendant A had the past record of eight times of punishment for narcotics crimes, and Defendant A again re-offending the same repeated crime period despite the past record of seven times of punishment.

Even if considering the sentencing factors against the above defendant and the scope of the sentencing guidelines for the above defendant, the court below's sentence is too unreasonable.

The above defendant's assertion is not accepted.

C. Defendant B, in around 2005, was discovered while importing narcotics in China and was exposed to a suspended sentence, Defendant B mediated the trade of philophones and administered philophones in around 201, and again committed the instant crime.

Although the above defendant committed the crime of this case at approximately five years after the crime of the same kind was committed, the crime of paragraphs (a) and (2) of Article 1 of the judgment among the crime of this case is highly likely to be committed in that the above defendant first asked Co-defendant A to request and request a philophone.

The above defendant has much the same power.