The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the grounds for appeal) of the lower court (the imprisonment with prison labor for six months and four years, etc.) is too unreasonable;

2. Determination

A. The appellate court needs to respect the sentencing of the lower court in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court and the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

① In light of the following: (a) the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake from an investigative agency; (b) the Defendant was not subject to criminal punishment for a crime related to narcotics; (c) the Defendant’s statement made by an investigative agency and the Defendant’s written opinion submitted to the Defendant; (d) the relationship between families appears to be certain; and (e) the need to take into account the equity between cases where the Defendant was tried simultaneously with the relevant crime finalized under the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 of the Criminal Act with regard to certain crimes.

C. However, the above circumstance alone is difficult to deem that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

In particular, the statutory penalty for the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which is the most severe crime, is a serious crime corresponding to imprisonment for life or for a limited term of not less than five years.

(1) In addition, in light of the fact that the Defendant committed a crime related to narcotics by various means in a wide range of areas, including the cultivation of marijuana, the advertisement of the sale of narcotics, the sale of narcotics, the sale of narcotics, and the possession of narcotics, the degree of narcotics distributed to the general public appears to be considerable, the

The defendant, including the above circumstances.