The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (a prison term of two years and six months; a suspended sentence of four years; a community service work 200 hours; a course of pharmacologic treatment; and an additional collection of KRW 500,000) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

2. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime under unfavorable circumstances; (b) it is not easy to detect narcotics crimes such as the instant crime in light of their characteristics; (c) it is considerably negative impact on the society as the risk of recidivism is high; and (d) there is a possibility to cause additional crimes due to the spread of narcotics and the likelihood of causing additional crimes; (b) the Defendant was not aware of the fact that he committed the instant crime without being aware of the past record of being sentenced to punishment for narcotics around 2001; and (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the past record of being sentenced to punishment for narcotics around 201; and (d) it was consistent with the reasoning that it is difficult to understand up to the lower court; (b) it does not seem to have been imported by the Defendant for the purpose of distributing phiphonephones; (d) the Defendant’s history of the instant crime was about about 18 years ago; and (e) the Defendant had not been prevented from committing the instant crime; and (e) the Defendant’s quantity of phiphonephones imported by the Defendant

Considering that it is difficult to see, the punishment for the defendant was determined.

The sentencing of the lower court seems to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above various circumstances.

The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as the grounds for sentencing were already considered by the lower court in the process of determining the sentence as above (in the case of the first instance court, the Defendant, while recognizing all the instant crimes, reflects his mistake) and other special circumstances that make it possible for the lower court to change the sentencing.

The prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. As the appeal by the prosecutor of conclusion is groundless, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.