The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing): The punishment of the lower court (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant filed an appeal against the lower judgment regarding the existence of the grounds for ex officio reversal, and the instant court decided to concurrently examine the aforementioned two appeals cases. However, according to the evidence, the date and time of the instant judgment on the first instance judgment was around May 22, 2016 and June 11, 2016. The date and time of the instant judgment on the second instance judgment was around the police officer on November 2, 2015 and the first police officer on January 16, 2016, between the instant judgment on the second instance judgment and the first instance judgment on February 16, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (mariju) at the Seoul Central District Court on February 24, 2016, and the said judgment became final and conclusive, and each of the instant judgment did not constitute a concurrent crime under Article 37 of the former Criminal Act.

Therefore, each of the crimes in the judgment below Nos. 1 and 2 does not require a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus does not constitute a ground for ex officio reversal.

B. Regarding the judgment of the court of first instance on the determination of the illegality of sentencing, the court below sentenced 6 months to each Defendant in consideration of the favorable circumstances, such as the following: (a) the result of the appraisal of phiphonephones showed both positive reaction in the urine and hair; (b) the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of probation despite having been punished for the same crime; (c) the fact that the administration of phiphones did not proceed to the crime of arranging the sales of phiphones; and (d) the fact that the Defendant made efforts to stop phiphones, such as the mental therapy and treatment, etc.

In relation to the judgment of the court below of the second instance, the court below ruled that the defendant's crime of this case is against the law.