2. Determination as follows: (a) there is a serious need for severe punishment due to severe social harm to a crime related to narcotics, and (b) the fact that the Defendant had been punished for the suspension of execution of the same kind of drug crime, despite the fact that the Defendant had a record of punishment for the crime of this case, and is likely to debrisate the crime

However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the facts of the crime and reflects his mistake; (b) the philophones and marijuana handled by the Defendant are relatively small amount; (c) simple acceptance and delivery of philophones and marijuana; (d) the above-mentioned previous convictions were conducted for about eight years; (b) the Defendant’s long-term detention may involve excessive difficulty for his dependants; (c) the Defendant’s detention for about three months at the lower court appears to have served as an opportunity for reflective and self-esteem; and (d) other various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, intelligence and environment, the motive and background of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, criminal records, and family relations, etc., which are the conditions for the instant sentencing. Thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit, since the Defendant’s sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to be unreasonable and too unreasonable.

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