2. The Defendant’s judgment on the grounds of appeal is not only an act of spreading Metepha (hereinafter “Handphones”), but also an act of spreading Metepha (hereinafter “Handphones”), such as threatening the victim who purchased Metephaphones, thereby passing money and stocks, and is also disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, on the other hand, there are various circumstances such as the defendant's erroneous judgment and the fact that the defendant would not repeat again while reflecting his depth, the fact that there is an exaggerated aspect in the amount of compromise under the facts charged, such as the market price of the shares held by the defendant, etc., the defendant returned the money and shares that he has taken place before the case, the defendant did not have any history of punishment for the crime of narcotics before the case, and the defendant must support his child, etc. In full view of the various circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence, etc., as well as the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the sentencing of the court below is unreasonable because it is too unreasonable, and therefore the prosecutor's assertion has no merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.