2. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s crime of this case was committed under normal conditions favorable to the Defendant, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant’s confession and reflects all of the instant crimes; (b) appears to have purchased marijuana for the purpose of simple smoking; (c) there is no history of punishment heavier than a fine; (d) there is no health-friendly mother; and (e) the representative director of the Defendant’s working company supporting the Defendant’s wife; and (c) there is a clear social relation; (b) narcotics-related crimes are very harmful to the Defendant; (c) the Defendant continuously purchased and continuously smoked marijuana for more than one year; and (d) the Defendant had the history of punishment for the same kind of crime; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment, family relationship; and (e) the motive and circumstance of each crime; and (e) all of the sentencing factors as shown in the arguments at the lower court’s decision, the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for

In full view of the factors and sentencing criteria as shown in the sentencing review process of the lower court, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

shall not be assessed.

There are no circumstances such as the circumstance alleged by the Defendant in this case, the difficult situation of the Defendant’s working company, and the reason for the illegality of sentencing, including the Defendant’s role in the above company, that the lower court was sentenced to punishment and sufficiently considered, and that it is unreasonable to maintain the lower court’s judgment as it is, even if comprehensively considering the present materials up to the sentencing hearing process of the court.

Therefore, the defendant does not accept the defendant's unfair argument.

3. If so, the defendant-appellant.