A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below is a favorable condition that the defendant led to the confession and reflect of the crime of this case, the defendant's attempt to cut the phiphones, the crime of this case seems to be inferior to the quality of the crime of selling the phiphones rather than to take the administration of the phiphones. The amount of the phiphones handled by the defendant is considerable. The defendant has the records of punishment six times (one time suspension of execution of imprisonment and five times imprisonment) for the same crime. The defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime without being sentenced to imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) for the same crime. The defendant was found to have been guilty of phiphones within the scope of prior to the defendant's urine and hair (6 to 7 mmmm in the length), the defendant's direction and punishment on the crime of this case [basic crime and around 1, 200, about 11g, the quantity of the phiphones handled by the defendant, the prosecutor and the defendant's motive for sale and purchase of this case, etc.]

3. If so, the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant 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.

However, according to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, "1......." ex officio under Articles 60(1)2, 4(1)1, and 2 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. under the relevant Act concerning criminal facts.