The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the fact that the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime, and the fact that the crime of narcotics requires a severe punishment due to severe social harm, the punishment imposed by the court below (such as imprisonment for a period of one year, suspension of execution three years, observation of protection, community service for 160 hours and lecture for drug treatment for 40 hours, etc.) is too unfeasible and unfair.

2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The lower court determined the above normal life penalty in consideration of the following: (a) the Defendant purchased and smoked marijuana several times; (b) the Defendant’s physical and mental health due to decliation, toxicity and radio wave, etc.; (c) the need to severely punish the Defendant due to high risk of undermining the health and social safety of the people; (d) the Defendant again committed a crime while having been sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime; (c) the Defendant recognized the Defendant as all and wrong for smoking; (d) the Defendant appears to have committed a crime for the mere purpose of smoking; and (e) the Defendant appears to have been punished for the same kind of crime without any favorable force after being sentenced to a fine on one occasion in 202.

The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal were already considered in the sentencing process of the lower court, and there was no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial in addition to the circumstances considered by the lower court.

In addition, considering various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, occupation, career, sex, environment, and social ties, the punishment sentenced by the court below is within the reasonable scope of discretion.