마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.
1. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants in summary of the grounds for appeal (Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for one year and eight months, and Defendant B’s imprisonment for ten months) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The fact that Defendant A recognizes both his mistake and reflects on Defendant A is favorable to Defendant A.
However, in light of the fact that Defendant A has been punished four times for a crime related to narcotics ( both punishment) and that Defendant A had been punished four times for a crime related to narcotics, that Defendant A was not only administered phiphones, but also provided good offices for sale, that the volume of Defendant A’s phiphones and marijuana handled by Defendant A is not large, and that other circumstances shown in the argument of this case, such as Defendant A’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, are considered, the lower court’s sentence against Defendant A is too unreasonable, and thus, Defendant A’s assertion is not acceptable.
B. The fact that Defendant B both recognized the Defendant B’s mistake and reflects it is favorable for Defendant B.
However, in light of the fact that Defendant B was punished three times for a crime related to narcotics (two times of suspended execution, one time of suspended sentence), and other circumstances shown in the argument of this case, such as Defendant B’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment against Defendant B is too unreasonable, and thus, Defendant B’s assertion is not acceptable.
3. The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit.