All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment of one year and six months, confiscation, additional collection of 4,671,400 won, Defendant B: imprisonment of one year and six months, additional collection of 2,200,000 won) which the court below sentenced against the Defendants, asserts that the Defendants are too unreasonable, and that the prosecutors are too uneasible and unfair.

2. We also examine the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing.

It is necessary to severely punish narcotics crimes not only because they avoid the body and mind of an individual, but also cause severe harm to society.

The amount of philopon jointly purchased by Defendants A or independently purchased by Defendants A is reasonable.

Defendant

A has committed a crime during the period of suspension of execution of fraud which became final and conclusive in the judgment of the court below, and Defendant B has the record of being punished as a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the same kind of drug crime.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the Defendants are against the recognition of crimes, and they show the intent to stop narcotics.

Defendant

A has no criminal record of the same kind.

It does not seem that the defendants sold philophones purchased by them in other places.

Such circumstances are favorable to the Defendants.

In addition, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) considering the Defendants’ age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relationship, health status, motive and background of the commission of a crime, frequency of the commission of a crime, and circumstances after the commission of a crime, etc., even though the Defendants, while trying to conceal a joint crime, had expressed an attitude toward passing the responsibility to the other party in the lower court, it cannot be said that the Defendants are too heavy or unreasonable to the extent that the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants cannot be exempted.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor is without merit, and Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.