2. It is recognized that the Defendants recognized the entire crimes of this case as well as reflect their mistakes, and the investigative agencies expressed their superior points.

However, in light of the addiction of narcotics and the harmful effects caused by the administration of narcotics, etc., there is a need to strictly punish and eradicate the crimes. The Defendants have the past record of having been sentenced to imprisonment several times for the crimes of narcotics (five times a sentence of punishment, Defendant B: eight times a sentence). In particular, the Defendants committed each of the crimes of this case without being aware of the fact that they were released from the prison under imprisonment with prison labor for the same crimes, in particular, even during the repeated period, and again committed the crimes of this case. The amount of Defendant A’s penphone handled is about 5g, the volume of the penphone handled by Defendant B is about 21g, and the volume of the penphone handled by Defendant B is considerable. Defendant A sells and provides the phone purchased from the upper line to many narcotics. In light of the fact that these crimes require strict punishment by omitting the latter, and that all of the Defendants appear to be less likely to have caused the Defendants to commit the crimes of this case by taking into account the following circumstances: the Defendants’ motive and degree of the punishment of each of this case.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and thus, the Defendants’ appeal is in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.