All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment of one year, confiscation, additional collection of 1250,000 won, Defendant B’s imprisonment of one year, additional collection of 200,000 won) declared by the court below against the Defendants is alleged to be too unreasonable, and the prosecutor argues that it is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. We also examine the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing.

The crime of narcotics needs not only to avoid the body and mind of an individual, but also to strictly punish the harm that may society. In this case, there are a lot of philophones that the defendants want to jointly purchase.

In addition, Defendant A was punished for the same crime at 11 times. On November 24, 2017, Defendant A was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for the same crime on March 8, 2019, and the execution of the sentence was completed on March 8, 2019, and Defendant B was punished for the same crime three times. In particular, Defendant B was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for the same crime on October 29, 2015, and again again again committed the same crime during the period of the suspension of execution, and was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for the same crime on October 13, 2016, and was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for the execution of each of the above punishment on February 7, 2018, and again re-guilty during the period of repeated crime.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous factors to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the Defendants reflects the commission of the crime and jointly trying to purchase phiphones, and Defendant A actively cooperates in the investigation of narcotics crimes, and Defendant B is merely philophones medication two times, which are favorable sentencing factors for the Defendants.

In addition, taking into account the following circumstances: the Defendants’ age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, health status, frequency of crimes, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable to the extent that it cannot be exempted from reversal.