The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and four months.

Defendant .

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months and 440,000 won from a surcharge, Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and 80,000 won from a surcharge) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the fact that Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime and for whom one year and six months have not yet passed since the end of the sentence, and that Defendant A committed the instant penphone medication, delivery, and possession of the same crime, it is inevitable to sentence the sentence to the Defendant.

However, on the other hand, there are other circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant is both the time of committing the crime, the defendant's situation where the defendant must support his mother and her child, the defendant's active cooperation with the investigation agency's arrest of the narcotics offender, and the R, S, and the investigation cooperation report to the effect that the defendant is arrested, submitted to the court of the trial. In full view of other various circumstances, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions specified in the present argument and the record, the sentence imposed by the court below is somewhat excessive.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.

B. Although there are no extenuating circumstances for Defendant C to take into account the fact that Defendant C was aware of the mistake when he committed the instant crime, the Defendant did not have any other reason. On the other hand, the Defendant had the history of having been punished twice for the same kind of crime, and the Defendant committed the instant crime again during the period of repeated crime because not only has long elapsed since the execution of the final sentence was completed, and the Defendant committed the instant crime again during the period of repeated crime. ② The lower court determined the sentence by fully considering the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.