The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, observation of protection, 40 hours of order to attend a lecture, confiscation) is deemed too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that: (a) the judgment of the court; (b) narcotics-related crimes are seriously harmful to the society due to narcotics’s toxicity, etc. and are highly likely to harm the health and social safety of the people; and (c) the Defendant administered and delivered a penphone on several occasions in addition to the instant crimes; and (d) the Defendant took part in the sale of a penphone, etc., it is necessary for the Defendant to bear strict responsibility equivalent thereto.

I see that it is.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime while committing the instant crime; (b) the investigative agency cooperates with the investigation by providing the contact information of the persons who delivered the penphones; and (c) there was no record of criminal punishment for the same drug crime before the commission of the instant crime; and (d) other factors such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the instant crime; and (b) all the sentencing conditions specified in the instant argument, including the circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneas

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.