2. The crime of this case is a normal situation favorable to the defendant, in which the defendant purchased a phiphone, even though he is not a narcotics handler, and delivered the phiphone to C, and administered the remaining phiphones twice thereafter. The defendant is fully recognized as committing the crime of this case, and there is no record of punishment for narcotics crimes since 200.

On the other hand, the defendant, even though he had been punished five times as punishment due to drug crimes, has come to the crime of this case, and the crime of this case is not good, and the degree of addiction is deemed not to be weak in light of the result of the defendant's maternity appraisal against the defendant, and it seems necessary to be isolated from society for a certain period of time, and the crime of narcotics is likely to cause disgradation of individuals, homes, society and human society, and requires strict punishment in that it is a social pathology beyond individual criminal acts.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable.

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

Provided, That the burden of litigation costs shall be governed by the proviso of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.