All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the respective punishment of the lower court (Defendant A: 5 years of imprisonment, etc.; Defendant B: 3 years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A is an initial offender who has no record of criminal punishment.

The defendant partially cooperated in the relevant investigation.

The defendant is responsible for the livelihood of the family members living in Thailand.

These circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant imported philophones, purchased philophones and philophones, and took possession of them, and illegally staying in the Republic of Korea.

Narcotics crimes are not easy to detect in their characteristics, and they have a negative impact on society as a whole, such as impairing national health or inducing other crimes, as well as impairing the risk of recidivism.

In addition, the import crime of narcotics is highly likely to cause the spread of narcotics and additional crimes resulting therefrom, so there is a need to punish the crimes.

The amount of narcotics imported by the defendant is not so large that it is trying to make profit through narcotics, and the crime related to narcotics is very heavy because it was committed while illegally staying in the Republic of Korea.

These circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition to the fact that there is no change in circumstances in relation to the sentencing conditions after the decision of the court below, considering comprehensively the sentencing conditions prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., including the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, and the circumstances that are favorable to the Defendant, it cannot be deemed unfair as it is too unreasonable to the extent that the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing cannot be accepted.

B. Defendant B is an initial offender with no record of criminal punishment.

The defendant partially cooperated in the relevant investigation.