1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

evidence of seizure.

1. The main points of the grounds for appeal are as follows. Each punishment of the lower court against the Defendants (a defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and confiscation, confiscation, collection of additional collection, and a imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crimes related to narcotics, etc. related to Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing are disadvantageous to Defendant A, inasmuch as they are highly likely to repeat a crime due to their toxicity, etc. and are highly harmful to individuals and society, there is a need for strict punishment. The frequency of the crimes by Defendant A is not certain, and the fact that Defendant A has the same criminal power.

However, in full view of the favorable circumstances such as the fact that Defendant A recognized his mistake and reflects, that Defendant A purchased narcotics for the purpose of medication, that does not reach the distribution act of narcotics, that there was no criminal records punished for narcotics crimes since 2008, that Defendant A must support Defendant A, and other circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing specified in the argument of the instant case, including the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court to Defendant A is heavy.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is justified.

B. Defendant C’s determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant C is against his own mistake, and the fact that each of the instant crimes is in a concurrent relationship between the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. ( native to the Act on the Control of Narcotics) and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which became final and conclusive, and thus need to consider equality in the case of judgment is favorable to Defendant C.

However, as seen earlier, narcotics-related crimes need to be severe punishment, and in particular, each of the crimes of this case is bad in that it causes another person's narcotics crime to be sold to Defendant A, and Defendant C is not guilty.