The judgment below

Of the defendants C, the part of the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Defendant

C.3.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendants to each punishment (the defendant A: imprisonment of three years, confiscation, confiscation and collection charges of three million won, the defendant B: imprisonment of two years and six months, the surcharge of three million won, etc., the defendant C: imprisonment of three years, the surcharge of three million won, the surcharge of three years, the surcharge of three years, the surcharge of three million won, the defendant D: imprisonment of four years, the surcharge of three million won, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The remaining Defendants, except Defendant C, are deemed to seriously reflect on the fact that the Defendants, who were not the Defendants, did not have any record of criminal punishment in the Republic of Korea, and the Defendants’ import around April 30, 2015, were entirely seized and distributed in Korea, and Defendant B appears not to have been led to the instant crime of import, and Defendant A and D cooperate with the investigation by informing the Defendants of the crimes of sale and purchase and medication.

However, each of the crimes of this case is disadvantageous to the following circumstances: (a) the instant crime was committed by importing and administering meramba camba camba; (b) taking into account the serious social harm and injury inflicted on the drug crime; (c) the nature of the crime is bad; (d) the amount of the camba camba imported by the Defendants is not a total of 802 camba; (d) the Defendants sold the camba camba; (e) Defendant D proposed the import as camba; and (e) paid the price to the suppliers; and (e) Defendant A actively participated in the crime, such as receiving the transport note according to Defendant D’s proposal and receiving the mail boxes containing the camba.

In addition to these circumstances, various conditions of sentencing indicated in the instant argument, including the Defendants’ age, criminal records, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the appellate court’s sentencing judgment (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), and evidence that Defendant D provided additional information on the crime of selling as a part of P.