All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (defendant A: imprisonment of one and half years, and imprisonment of one year and one year) is too unreasonable.

2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The lower court, as stated in its reasoning, determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the favorable and unfavorable circumstances of the Defendants.

Defendant

A has been punished on seven occasions for a thief crime, and the crime of this case is not only the same repeated crime but also the number of narcotics medications (five times).

In addition, Defendant B has been punished five times as a violation of the Toxic Chemicals Control Act, and there is a high possibility of criticism in that Defendant A, who had no experience in administration of narcotics, has provided five penphones to Defendant A with a new penphone addict.

The circumstances alleged by the Defendants on the grounds of appeal appear to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the lower court, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the terms and conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime (three times in violation of the discipline of Defendant A detention center), and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, as shown in the hearing of the lower court and the party deliberation, the lower court’s sentence may not be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to have been too unfair.

3. Accordingly, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.