All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the appeal is that the sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and four months, and Defendant B: imprisonment of ten months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the facts that Defendant A is led to a crime and reflective to Defendant A, the fact that there was a history of punishment several times for the same crime, the fact that the act was committed during the period of the same repeated crime of the same kind, the fact that the act was received, purchased, administered, possessed marijuana, and the fact that the form of the crime is not less than that of the offender, and the fact that the amount of the penphone handled is not much small, the court below’s punishment cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unreasonable in light of all the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, motive for the crime, frequency of the crime, the number of crimes, and the circumstances after the crime.

B. In full view of all the sentencing conditions, such as Defendant B’s age, sex behavior, motive, frequency of the crime, method of crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the confession of the crime against Defendant B; (b) the fact that it is a single simple medication crime committed by an investigative agency; (c) the fact that it actively cooperates in the investigation of the phiphones; (d) the fact that it is a crime during the period of repeated crime due to the same kind of crime; and (e) the response to the training of phiphonephones as a result of the assessment

3. In conclusion, the defendants' appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendants' appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.