2. Considering the fact that the crime of narcotics, such as the instant crime, is not easy to detect due to its characteristics, and is likely to have a high risk of recidivism, as well as negative impact on the society as a whole, and further, the importation of narcotics, etc., is likely to cause additional crimes, and thus, requires strict punishment compared to simple medication, and that the crime is highly severe than simple medication, and that the Defendant’s act of receiving postal items containing lebbbba in order to avoid his/her punishment, etc., it is inevitable to punish the Defendant with severe punishment corresponding to his/her liability.

However, the first instance court that sentenced a punishment, which is the lowest sentencing range according to the sentencing guidelines, by considering all the circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, family environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime of this case, considering the following: (a) the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects the depth of the defendant; (b) the amount of the defendant's secret imports is relatively large; (c) the defendant was seized and not distributed as well; and (d) the defendant has no record of being punished for crimes related to narcotics in the Republic of Korea before the crime of this case; and (e) the defendant has a family member to support the defendant; and (e) the defendant has a family member to support the crime of this case.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the first instance sentence against the defendant is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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