Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 306,00) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The Defendant voluntarily surrendered.

The Defendant appears not only to cooperate with the investigation but also to repent of his mistake by recognizing each of the crimes in this case.

However, in the case of narcotics-related crimes, it is not easy to detect the characteristics of the crime, and the risk of recidivism is high, as well as the negative impact on society as a whole due to the declimatic toxicity. Therefore, in the case of the crime of damage to public documents, it is necessary to establish the legal order of the state and to eradicate the light of the public power which is fluent in our society.

The defendant administered philophonephones three times, smoked marijuana twice, held marijuana once more, and teared the certificate of refusal to seize and seize the seizure report by voluntarily submitting it at the police station, and the responsibility for the crime is not easy.

The defendant seems to have voluntarily surrendered to the state immediately after the administration of philophones.

The Defendant has a past record of criminal punishment for 26 times (3 times of actual punishment, five times of suspended execution, and 18 times of fine) and two times of such past record (one time of suspended execution of sentence, one time of fine) are criminal records of the same kind as the crime of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) and the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.

In addition, even if the defendant's age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relation, motive and circumstance of the crime, method and consequence of the crime, etc. are added to all the factors of sentencing indicated in the records and arguments, there is no new circumstance to deem that the sentencing conditions of the court below against the defendant were changed at the time of the trial, and the sentencing of the court below is too heavy or unreasonable beyond the reasonable discretion.