However, Defendant A has no record of criminal punishment, and is the age of 21 years old, and both Defendant B and C including Defendant A and Defendant C do not commit such crimes again because they violate the law late later.

They can be considered as favorable circumstances to the Defendants.

On the other hand, Defendant A purchased hub narcotics on two occasions, and the number of times in which he inhaled sob narcotics or phiphones had been used in the conference has reached ten times and is not a large number of transfer of narcotics used, Defendant B and C committed the crime of narcotics, such as purchase and inhale of the sob narcotics of the same kind, even though they had the record of punishment for the crime of the same kind, and the crime of narcotics is committed again, and such a crime of narcotics needs to be eradicated as a crime of causing serious health harm to society.

In addition, in full view of the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, background, circumstances after the instant crime, other various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of the Supreme Court, and the scope of guidelines for sentencing established by the Sentencing Committee, etc., the lower court’s choice of the minimum punishment (a life imprisonment or imprisonment for more than five years) against the Defendants within the scope of the mitigated sentence, and the sentence of suspended execution cannot be deemed unfair because the lower court’s punishment is too large.

Therefore, the appeal by the defendants is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the appeal by the defendants is without merit.