All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (2 years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for August and 2 years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for Defendant C: 2 years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for June) is too unreasonable.

2. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the lower court because new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial and the sentencing has not been changed compared to the original judgment. In full view of the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court, the sentencing of the lower court was too too large and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are without merit.

3. The Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 3 subparag. 7 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.). However, “Article 4 subparag. 4 of the judgment of the court below” means “Article 1-D”, “Article 6-4(4) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., and Article 25(1) of the Regulations on the Criminal Procedure, respectively, “Article 3 subparag. 7 of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., (amended by Act No. 14019, Feb. 3, 2016)” is clearly erroneous terms of office under Article 3 subparag. 9 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Article 25(1) of the Regulations on the Control of Narcotics, etc., shall be corrected ex officio.