2. In light of the following facts, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s crime of this case was committed by purchasing, receiving, and selling phiphones for several times, and then purchasing and selling phiphones more likely than phiphones, and that such a crime of narcotics has a significant harm to not only the Defendant himself but also society, and thus, its nature is grave. (b) under favorable circumstances, the Defendant’s purchase and sale, the volume of narcotics administered by the Defendant is relatively small, the Defendant’s family members are relatively small, and the Defendant’s family members are able to properly admonish the Defendant so as to avoid committing such crime. In so doing, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment for up to 1/2 of the statutory penalty by applying Articles 53, 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act, and sentenced to imprisonment for up to 3 years and 4 years, which is the maximum period of punishment, and sentenced to imprisonment for up to 3 years and 4 years, which is the maximum period of imprisonment.

The lower court’s sentencing seems to have been determined in full view of the aforementioned various circumstances, and there is no change in circumstances that could be evaluated differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court up to the trial, and in full view of all the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, degree of social experience (which is still a student’s status), sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive for committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

The prosecutor's improper argument in sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.