The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. The summary of the instant crime is as follows: (a) the Defendant received 22 marijuana storages in collusion with D and/or B residing in the Republic of Korea and supplying liquid marijuana, and purchased liquid marijuana from D on two occasions; and (b) delivered it to B by delivering it to B, in collusion with D and B purchasing liquid marijuana.

Defendant is in profoundly against his will.

The Defendant did not actively participate in the instant crime, and received marijuana delivered to B upon D’s request, and then delivered it to B. As such, the degree of participation is somewhat less than that of other accomplices.

The marijuana imported as a result of the instant crime was most seized and distributed at the time.

The accomplice B was arrested by actively cooperating with the investigation of the defendant.

Defendant has no record of punishment in Korea.

The above is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, narcotics crimes are not easy to detect in terms of their characteristics, and the risk of recidivism is high, and there is a significant negative impact on the whole society as well as individuals due to decoverability, toxicity, etc.

In particular, since the importation of narcotics is highly likely to cause additional crimes due to the proliferation of narcotics and the spread of narcotics, there is a need to strictly punish them.

Cannabis imported by the defendant is much more than the hemp plant, and the quantity of marijuana is much much more than the hemp plant.

The instant crime was repeated in the same way during a relatively short period of time.

The above is the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances, Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc., all of the sentencing conditions and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, the lower court’s sentencing against Defendant is too excessive.