2. In full view of the circumstances that both the Defendants recognized the crime and expressed the intent to treat narcotics addiction, and Defendant A cooperate in the investigation of narcotics addiction, although all the Defendants have the record of criminal punishment for the same crime, Defendant B has multiple criminal records, the Defendants committed a repeated crime during the period of repeated crime, the drug crime is inevitable for severe punishment, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments, including the Defendants’ age, health, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., it cannot be said that the sentence imposed by the lower court is excessive and unfair.

In particular, even if Defendant A’s cooperation in investigation that is additionally claimed by Defendant A in the trial does not appear to be a significant change in circumstances that could reduce the sentence of the lower court. Even if it recognizes mitigation elements of “important investigation cooperation,” the scope of the recommended punishment based on the increase in multiple crimes according to the sentencing guidelines is “one hundred months to three years and six months,” and the sentence of the lower court still remains close to the lower limit of the above recommended sentence, and the sentencing of the lower court is deemed appropriate.

Therefore, the defendants' argument of sentencing is without merit.

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