All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, and one year and six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

2. The determination of narcotics crimes are not easy to detect in light of their characteristics and have a significant negative impact on society by not only impairing the risk of recidivism but also impairing the public health and causing other crimes. The case is purchased in the Republic of Korea when the foreigner purchases a sea trial, which is narcotics, etc., in a sealed manner. In particular, in light of the fact that the defendant C smokes in the sea trial, each of the crimes of this case by the defendants is not against the nature of the crime.

However, all of the Defendants reflects their mistakes in depth and trade, and there are many quantities at the time of sale, and the Defendants did not have any history of punishment for crimes related to narcotics, etc. prior to the crime in this case, Defendant A is married with a female of Korean nationality and her family in Korea, and the above Defendant’s wife and the mother appears to be clear of social ties, such as her wife and her mother, promising to actively assist the rehabilitation of the above Defendant, and Defendant B raises two married children with developmental disabilities, and Defendant C seems to have no risk of recidivism in the Republic of Korea as the judgment becomes final and conclusive, and thus there is a high risk of recidivism in the Republic of Korea. In light of the court below’s review based on the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act and the sentencing guidelines set forth in the records and changes theory of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion is rejected as it is without merit.

3. The conclusion is as to the Defendants of the prosecutor.