The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

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

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing)

A. The Defendant explicitly withdrawn misunderstanding of facts as to the process of the purchase of marijuana from the first trial date.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

Judgment

Since narcotics, including marijuana, are highly harmful to the society as well as individuals due to their halluity, toxicity, etc., and in particular, narcotics import crimes are highly likely to cause additional crimes due to the spread of narcotics and their potential, it is necessary to strictly cope with them.

The crime of this case is a crime that the defendant imported marijuana in collusion with many persons, and it is not good that the crime of this case is committed in light of the quantity of marijuana handled by the defendant or the contents of the crime.

However, the defendants recognize all crimes, repent their errors in depth, and reflect them.

The whole amount of marijuana imported by the defendant has not been seized and distributed.

Although the accomplice tried to abandon a mobile phone after witnessing the process of arrest, he did not seem to have destroyed or concealed evidence systematically, he was present at the investigation agency after he was present at the investigation agency to voluntarily investigate the crime and tried to commit his crime.

The defendant has no record of committing a crime other than a fine for one time due to drinking driving, and has his mistake divided and live as a sound member of society.

In full view of the above factors of sentencing as well as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the factors of sentencing shown in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, it is deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable even if considering the aforementioned unfavorable circumstances.

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

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is justified.