Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and for a defendant B, for four years, respectively.

(b).

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion, there are circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant that the Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion is not a large amount of the clockopon of the clopon purchased from the co-defendant (the copon of the copon; hereinafter “copon”), the purchased copon was sold to L, and the copon was administered several times of copon.

However, the defendant has shown a clear attitude to stop narcotics, such as informing the investigation agency of the co-defendant who has sold phiphones, and putting the co-defendant in the process of arresting the co-defendants.

In addition, there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances of the crime in that the defendant's request made by L who wants to purchase a phiphone and caused the crime of purchasing and selling the phiphone in this case and the defendant did not actively spread the phiphone to a third party.

In addition, the defendant has served in good faith for a long period of domestic sojourn, and there is no record of crime except punishment of a fine for an act of violence.

The defendant's employer, family members and branch members also seem to have a clear social relationship, such as wanting the defendant's wife against the defendant.

Considering these circumstances favorable to the defendant, even if considering the above circumstances, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable compared to the extent of the defendant's responsibility.

Defendant

A's unfair argument of sentencing is justified.

B. The crime of narcotics, etc. that judged Defendant B’s assertion, is not easy to detect the characteristics of the crime, and is highly likely to have a negative impact on society as a whole.