The defendant and prosecutor's appeal are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (public prosecutor) that the court below rendered on the grounds of appeal (three million won of a fine) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. It is reasonable to respect the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination of unfair sentencing, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant stated that he/she received narcotics from B at an investigative agency, but did not have been present at the court and received narcotics from B. Perjury would impair the judicial function of the State by conducting an examination to discover the truth of the court.

Crime has been committed during the period of repeated crime due to this crime.

However, the defendant recognizes and reflects the crime.

In a trial on B, the testimony of the defendant was rejected, which did not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

After the instant case, the Defendant was unable to communicate with language disorder and smooth communication.

Basic living recipients are recipients.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of various conditions of sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, health status, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and consequences, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence imposed by the Defendant goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. According to the records on the Defendant’s appeal, the Defendant was served on April 23, 2020 with the notification of the receipt of the trial record and the appointment of a public defender, but did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal within 20 days from the deadline for submitting the lawful statement of grounds for appeal. There is no indication in the petition of appeal, and there is no reason for ex officio examination

4. The appeal by the prosecutor of conclusion is without merit.