All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal: The sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months, and Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 3 years and 6 months) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion, the lower court determined a sentence within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court’s sentencing committee, taking into account the following factors: (a) Defendant A’s unfavorable circumstances; (b) narcotics-related crimes are highly harmful to individuals and society due to the toxicity of narcotics, etc.; (c) recidivism during the period of repeated crimes despite the past having been punished several times as the same kind of crimes; (b) Defendant reflects his mistake in depth in favorable circumstances; and (c) Defendant was punished only by medication.

The sentencing of the lower court seems to have been appropriately determined by fully considering the above various circumstances, and there is no special change in circumstances that are different from the sentencing conditions of the lower court until the appellate court is in the first instance.

Defendant

After A suffered a traffic accident in the past, he/she started to have a hand on narcotics to reduce the pain due to severe pain, and thereby, he/she suffers from the current liveration. However, even in addition to all various sentencing factors indicated in the argument of this case, including Defendant A’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive for committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

Defendant

A's unfair argument of sentencing is not accepted.

B. The lower court determined the Defendant B’s assertion: (a) under unfavorable circumstances; (b) narcotics-related crimes are highly harmful to the individual and society due to narcotics’ gravity; (c) the quantity of penphones possessed by Defendant B was considerable; (d) re-offending during the period of repeated offense despite the history of having been punished several times for the same kind of crime; and (e) Phonephone addiction symptoms.