1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years;

Defendant

A Evidence Nos. 1,10, 10.

1. The main points of the grounds for appeal are as follows. Each punishment of the court below against the Defendants (the defendant A: imprisonment of two and half years and confiscation, confiscation, collection of additional collection, and the imprisonment of ten months and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime related to narcotics, etc. that judged on Defendant A’s assertion is highly likely to repeat a crime due to its toxicity, etc., and is highly harmful to individuals and society, and thus there is a need for strict punishment. Defendant A has the criminal records of the same kind of crime, thereby having been punished several times, and Defendant A has a high possibility of criticism that Defendant A committed the crime of this case without being aware of it even though it is a repeated crime period, and the frequency of the crime is not considerable.

However, the defendant A reflects his wrong, and the defendant accepted narcotics for profit-making purposes.

In full view of the favorable circumstances such as the fact that the act of distributing narcotics against the majority or unspecified persons does not go to the act of distributing narcotics, and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and method of committing the crime, and the circumstances after committing the crime, the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is deemed to be too unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion is justified.

B. Prior to the determination of Defendant B’s assertion, narcotics-related crimes need to be strictly punished in light of the risk of recidivism and harm to individuals and society, etc., as seen earlier, and Defendant B’s frequency of Phonephone medication is four times, etc.

However, it seems that Defendant B is against his wrongness, and the crime of this case does not reach the distribution act of narcotics beyond the simple medication, Defendant B has no same criminal record, Defendant B seems to have relatively obvious social relationship, and Defendant B and Defendant B’s family members are the same.