The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

Defendant .

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the punishment (for each of the defendants, 10 months of imprisonment and collection) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the partial narcotics-related crimes against Defendant A are highly harmful to the society due to toxicity, Defendant A committed the instant crime that administers phiphones on June 13, 2014 during the repeated crime period, and the same crime was committed twice (the suspension of the execution of imprisonment on or around 2005, the suspension of the execution of imprisonment on or around 2006, and the suspension of the execution of imprisonment on or around 2006) or was punished, it is inevitable to sentence Defendant A to the instant crime.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) Defendant A is both aware of and against all of the instant crimes; (b) Defendant A’s active cooperation with the arrest of the narcotics offender was submitted during the trial; and (c) Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, occupation and environment, family relationship; (d) circumstances and results of each of the instant crimes; and (e) circumstances that are conditions for sentencing specified in the records and pleadings, such as circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court to Defendant A is somewhat unreasonable, and thus, Defendant A’s assertion is reasonable.

B. Considering the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that Defendant B recognized all of the instant crimes and reflected in the part against Defendant B

Even though narcotics-related crimes are highly harmful to society due to toxicity, Defendant B had a record of being punished for a suspended sentence of imprisonment for the same kind of crime on or around 2000, Defendant B committed the same crime during the suspended sentence period due to fraud on or around 2012, but was sentenced to a fine on or around June 13, 2014, and committed the instant crime on or around June 13, 2014; there is no change in the circumstances or circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment; there is no change in the criminal punishment for other crimes similar to the instant crime; the balance with the criminal punishment for other crimes similar to the instant crime; and the age, character, and behavior of Defendant B.