2. In light of the addiction of narcotics and the harm caused by medication of narcotics, etc., the crime of narcotics need to be strictly punished and eradicated, and the Defendant is deemed to have the record of punishment three times (one time of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor, two times of imprisonment with prison labor) for the same kind of crime, and the Defendant’s detection of phiphones ingredients from the mother’s hair is deemed to have been disadvantageous.

However, there are favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant made a confession of the instant crime while committing the crime, the purchase for medication, and the first medication; the Defendant committed the instant crime after about 13 years from the time when the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime; the Defendant’s former wife and the executives and employees of the Defendant’s company wishing to have the Defendant’s prior address.

In addition to the above circumstances, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the previous theory, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.