All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) sentenced by the court below (two years and six months, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

(2) In the grounds of appeal, Defendant B stated that the amount of additional collection would be determined by mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles in the statement of appeal; however, Defendant B did not proceed to a specific assertion, and withdrawn it on the first trial date). Defendant B did not have any record of criminal punishment except for the suspension of indictment for this type of crime; Defendant C has no record of criminal punishment; Defendant C also has no record of criminal punishment; Defendants as young children aged 24 or 23, whose family members are leading the Defendants, and have social and family-related relations with the Defendants; Defendants appears to have been taking part in the crime; Defendants appears to have been relatively minor; Defendants appears to have taken part in the crime due to D’s solicitation; Defendants were to have taken advantage of the degree of participation; all Defendants were aware of the crime from the investigation stage to have been recognized and took part in the crime; and Defendants actively cooperate in the investigation, such as aiding and aiding and abetting a specific accomplice and arresting the Defendants.

However, the defendants are sentenced to the lowest sentence within the scope of discretionary mitigation, and these favorable circumstances seems to be fully reflected in the original trial.

The Defendants imported 500 milliliterss per day at the time when they intend to manufacture and sell marijuana in the amount of electronic tobacco, and sold and distributed it in Korea on several occasions.

The Defendants made use of the so-called so-called remote method to inform the purchaser of the place hidden for marijuana after receiving the sales proceeds from the purchaser as a twitch E for the sealed marijuana trade. The method of crime is very intelligent and professional.

Although the defendants are less likely to participate than D, the degree of participation is somewhat weak.