2. The lower court determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) considering the fact that the crime of narcotics is highly likely to cause personal and social harm; (b) the Defendant smokes marijuana; (c) the Defendant sold marijuana to other persons; (d) the Defendant’s trade and smoking and possession of marijuana was committed over several occasions for a period exceeding one year (five times, giving and receiving once, six times, six times, smoking, eight times, and one time, respectively); and (d) the amount of the purchased marijuana is not much; (e) taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant’s purchase and selling of marijuana for the purpose of obtaining economic benefits; and (e) taking into account the factors favorable to the Defendant, such as the sentencing guidelines and other factors favorable to the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of all the sentencing factors as shown in the argument in the instant case.

When the sentencing of the lower court’s judgment is fully taken into account in the first instance court, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

As there is no change in the sentencing conditions that can be deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed unfair because it is too large.

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

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.