2. We also examine the examination of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant and the sentencing of the defendant.

The defendant does not seem to have received narcotics, etc. systematically and professionally, and seems to have received them for the purpose of medication.

In addition to the Defendant’s partial commission of the instant crime, the Defendant cooperateed in the investigation into the persons involved in the instant crime, such as informing them of the persons who administered narcotics, along with them.

The Defendant recognized all of the crimes up to the judgment of the court, and is against his mistake.

The Defendant did not have any particular criminal history prior to each of the instant crimes.

On the other hand, however, narcotics-related crimes are highly likely to cause harm and harm to the society as well as individuals due to their toxicity.

The Defendant administered narcotics more than a year over a year, and in particular, even though he was investigated or tried to administer narcotics due to the fact of the medication, the Defendant administered narcotics.

In light of the frequency and timing of the administration of the defendant, the details and circumstances of the crime, etc., the defendant seems to be addicted to narcotics.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing circumstances, such as the defendant's age, sex, family relation, motive, means, result, and circumstances after the crime, the above sentence that the court below sentenced is reasonable, and is not considered too weak or unreasonable.

The above argument by a prosecutor and the defendant is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.