The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) The defendant's defense counsel asserted that the amendment to a bill of indictment is necessary through his defense counsel's written opinion on December 9, 2020. However, the defendant's defense counsel stated that the part stated in the process of cooperation in the investigation of accomplices, etc. during the third trial on the trial date is not necessarily necessary for considering the sentencing, and that the amendment to a bill of indictment is not necessarily necessary, and it is difficult to recognize the identity between the facts charged in the instant case and the facts charged

The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, collection 3,649,00 won) is too unreasonable.

It is necessary to strictly punish narcotics crimes on the grounds of appeal because they are toxicly harmful to their own body and mind due to their declimatic toxicity, and are detrimental to public health and have a negative impact on society as a whole.

Upon C’s request, the Defendant purchased X-si and sold it to C in the same manner, sold it to C by purchasing marijuana. The Defendant purchased and administered, possessed, and purchased and used JWH-018 similar body, which is a synthetic marijuana. The Defendant smokes the purchased marijuana or inhales the ASEAN which is a hallucinogenic substance.

In light of the various kinds of narcotics handled by the Defendant, such as Xers, phiphonephones, marijuana, and synthetic marijuana, and the quantity and frequency of handling, the liability for the crime is not easy.

As a result of the appraisal of the defendant's urine and hair, both philophones, marijuana, and synthetic marijuana ingredients were detected.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, all of the crimes of this case are recognized by the defendant, and the defendant lives in custody for a period of eight months, and his mistake is divided through several reflective doors.

The defendant was informed by the investigative agency of the telephone seller's telephone, and after the trial, the defendant became aware of the telephone seller's telephone.