The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The summary of the grounds for appeal: The punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Narcotics-related crimes cause the degradation of individuals, homes, society, and human society as a whole, which are highly likely to be criticized in that they are social phenomenon beyond individual criminal acts.

The crime of this case was committed by importing narcotics into the Republic of Korea, such as Metephopty psychotropic drugs (i.e., one philopon; hereinafter referred to as “philopon”), MDMA (i.e., one xpopon; hereinafter referred to as “xpopon”), and temporary narcotics (i.e., one m., one xpopon; hereinafter referred to as “xpopon”), and committing acts such as purchase, medication, provision, and painting, xphopon, and carcoping possession, etc., of philopon, and thus, the crime is not less than those.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the Defendant, while living under detention for a considerable period of time, recognized all of the crimes of this case.

Most of the narcotics imported by Defendant were confiscated and not distributed in the market.

The Defendant still has no criminal power over 20 young people, and his family members and their neighbors want to take the lead to the Defendant, and they also expressed their strong will to stop the Defendant’s narcotics and become members of a sincere society.

These points are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, considering the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the growth process, character, conduct and environment, family relationship, social relationship, means and result, etc. of the defendant, the sentence against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, so it is in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.