A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The judgment has a record of being punished several times due to the same kind of crime in the past, and it is necessary to impose strict liability on the defendant in that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case again during the suspension period of the execution of the same kind of crime.

However, the circumstances that are favorable to the defendant are that the defendant recognizes his mistake and reflects the fact that the amount of philophones administered by the defendant and the number of times of medication are relatively large.

In addition to these circumstances, considering the various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommended sentences (one year to five years and six months) according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Commission of the Supreme Court / [the scope of recommended sentences] medication, simple possession, etc., of types 3 (one year to three years), the aggravated area (one year to three years) [special persons] of the same criminal offense (a more than three years of suspended sentence): The final sentencing scope according to the aggravated punishment of multiple criminal offenses of the same kind (a person under special relationship). Considering that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the Defendant is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument are without merit.

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